Lords Sitting of 22 June 1916

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN.
The Right Honourable Henry Chaplin, having boon created Viscount Chaplin of St. Oswald's, Blankney, in the county of Lincoln—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
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 Orders applicable to the Petition for the following Hill have not been complied with:
Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

RHODES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Prevented, and read 1a.

CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD.
(Petition for Bill.)
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.

GREAT CENTRAL AND SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.

UXBRIDGE GAS BILL.
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, KINGSTON-UPON-HULL BILL.
FOLKESTONE GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c
Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914—
Order, No. 9754, dated 30th May, 1916, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until 15th June, 1916:
Order, No. 9760, dated 14th June, 1916, further postponing the operation of the two Orders in question until 29th June, 1916:
National Insurance Acts—
The National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations (Ireland) 1916, dated 21st June, 1916;
The National Health Insurance (Naval and Military Forces, Service during War) Regulations, 1916, dated 9th June, 1916:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; (viz.),

E. Camperdown (Chairman),

L. Monteagle (M. Sligo),

L. Aberdare,

L. Avebury,

L. Weardale;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 4th of July next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
HALIFAX CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Variation of settlements.
6. The said two Indentures of settlement dated the eighteenth day of July One thousand nine hundred and five shall respectively be varied in the following manner (videlicet.):—

(1) The grant by the Indenture first hereinbefore recited of a yearly rentcharge of two hundred pounds shall become and henceforth be null and void and the lands upon which the said rentcharge was charged shall henceforth be freed released and discharged there from and the grant demise and disposition of the said lands to the said Robert Lecky and Alfred Edward Brett made by the same Indenture shall also henceforth become and be null and void and the said lands shall be held and enjoyed to all intents and purposes as if such grant demise and disposition had not been made;

(2) The assignment by the same Indenture to the said Robert Lecky and Alfred Edward Brett of the two Policies of Assurance on the life of the said Hugh Lecky shall become and henceforth be null and void and the said Policies and the proceeds thereof shall be held and enjoyed by the said Hugh Lecky to all intents and purposes as if such assignment had not been made;

(3) The interests of the said Annie Margaret Lecky and all persons claiming or to claim through from or under her under the same Indenture in the said rentcharge and the said Policies of Assurance and the proceeds thereof shall cease and determine;

(4) The said Robert Lecky and Alfred Edward Brett or other the Trustees or Trustee for the time being of the Indenture secondly hereinbefore
342
recited shall hold the two sums of One thousand pounds each now vested in them pursuant to the provisions of that Indenture In trust for the said Annie Margaret Lecky absolutely and the interest of the said Hugh Lecky and all persons claiming or to claim through from or under him under the said Indenture in the said two sums and the income thereof shall cease and determine.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, this Amendment to Clause 6 and the subsequent Amendments are considered necessary in connection with this Bill, and with your Lordships' permission I move that all the Amendments standing on the Paper be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 7, subsection (1), line 21, leave out from ("the") [" shall hold the"] to ("In") in line 23 and insert ("securities representing the proceeds of the Policy of Assurance therein referred to and the further sum of One thousand pounds also therein referred to and the income of such securities").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 7, line 26, leave out ("two sums") and insert ("proceeds and sum of money and the securities for the time being representing the same").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Proviso that Annie Margaret Lecky is not to marry Robert Fox Goodman.
7. Provided always and be it further enacted that it shall not be lawful for the said Annie Margaret Lecky at any time hereafter to contract matrimony with the said Robert Pox Goodman but that such matrimony shall be and is hereby declared to be illegal and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever and the child and children born therein shall be illegitimate and subject to all the disabilities privations and restrictions to which any child or children born out of lawful wedlock is or may be subject by the laws and customs of the United Kingdom or any part thereof.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Preamble:
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("thirteenth") and insert ("thirtieth").
Line 28, leave out ("two sums of One thousand pounds") and insert ("sum of One thousand pounds assured by the said Policy of Assurance (together with an addition thereto by way of bonus) and the said further sum of One thousand pounds").
Lines 29 and 30, leave out ("the moneys representing the said two sums").
Line 31, after ("to") insert ("the securities representing the sums so realised").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of Board to acquire land for small holding colonies.
1.—(1) Luring the continuance of the present war, and a period of twelve months thereafter, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as "the Board") for the purpose of providing experimental small holding colonies may, with the consent of the Treasury, acquire by agreement any land which, in the opinion of the Board, is suitable for that purpose:
Provided that the total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board for the purposes of this section shall not at any time exceed six thousand acres.
(2) For the purpose of the acquisition of land by agreement under this Act, the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Act except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement and the provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land.
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT moved, after the word "land" in subsection (1) [" acquire by agreement any land"] to insert "in England and Scotland." The noble Lord said: I bring forward this Amendment as a whole-hearted supporter of the principle that we should do something worthy of the country for the men who have fought for us oversea. I listened with great interest the other day to the statement made by Lord Lansdowne that there was nothing which the Government were not prepared to do to support any movement for bettering the condition of ex-Service men after the war. The scheme in this Bill, however,
344
can only be regarded as experimental, or the forerunner of something much larger, because it is unbelievable that the total effort of the country in the settlement of ex-soldiers and sailors on the land should be confined to a number which represents merely a double company. Compare this with what happened in South Africa. There a single member of your Lordships' House, the Duke of Westminster, spent himself something approaching one-third of the total sum involved in this Bill in settling men, largely from his own Yeomanry, after the war.
If this experiment is to be of any value, the most important factor is the time-table. The principle on which it is based has to be proved a success in order that before the end of the war, or immediately afterwards, there may be in existence a definite scheme which the country is prepared to take up. But if the Committee, as in this Bill, have to deal with two Public Departments—the Board of Agriculture in England and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland—the difficulties in the way of getting to work will be doubled. There is not a member of your Lordships' House who has not been occasionally brought into touch with Government Departments. We know that the £300 a year clerk, who has a very great say, or appears to have, in the running of the Public Departments, is the nigger in the fence on every occasion when it comes to the question of land schemes, and almost insuperable difficulty is experienced in getting even the smallest reform through. I contend that if, in connection with the scheme in this Bill, you have to deal with two Departments, you will be doubling what will prove your greatest difficulty.
Next you have to invite public attention and eventually public support, and I submit that if you have one well-chosen Committee who will deal with a single Department your chance of having the work done well and quickly will be greatly increased. It may be argued that in having one Committee to deal with England and Scotland there may be difficulties on account of different laws and matters of that kind, but it would, I suggest, be possible to have a subcommittee thoroughly acquainted with Scottish affairs to deal with the Scottish side of the question. The scheme in this Bill settles only 300 men. Surely this is not going to represent the total effort of this country to settle men on the land after

345
the war. Yet if you are unable to put this experiment through with rapidity and to invite public opinion in its support, it will probably begin and end with this Bill. We are all aware in Scotland of the slowness with which any advance has been made there in regard to land settlement. We also know that a large expenditure of money has been incurred in order to set up a very few holdings. There is in Scotland a feeling of profound distrust, of the way in which the land question is being administered there.
If this experiment is to be any success at all in Scotland, you must have, as Lord Lansdowne pointed out the other clay, good land, a sufficiency of capital by the individuals who settle on the land, and also experience. Good land, I am certain, will be forthcoming in sufficient quantities provided that landowners recognise, to use a colloquialism, that they will have, a run for their money. I am confident that the question of a sufficiency of capital will be met in a great many cases by officers wishing to assist individual members of their company or regiment who have done good service. We saw that after the South African War, and we shall see it on an infinitely larger scale after this war. In the South African War the majority of the Yeomanry were serving at the rate of 5s. a day, which enabled them at the end of the war to have sufficient capital to settle on the land. In the present case, where men are paid only the regulation rate, there will not be the same number who will have a couple of hundred pounds at the end of the war. Therefore the question of outside help, which I am confident will be readily given, is one of importance. But I am certain that aid will be forthcoming only provided those who can give it are satisfied that the scheme will have a working chance. Again, on the question of experience, which includes the character of the individuals serving, the more you invite public support to a scheme of this sort the more easy it will be to get in touch with the character of the men you put on to the land. In this case you will want more than the small bit of parchment, the good conduct certificate, which every man takes away with him at the end of his service.
Looking at this Bill from the Scottish point of view, I see that forestry forms no part of the scheme. I very much regret that this is not one of the experiments to be
346
tried by His Majesty's Government in connection with putting men on the land. Forestry possesses a good many advantages in the settlement of men with small capital. The settlement is cheaper than in the case of agricultural land, and in connection with forestry there is work in the winter. I have no doubt that most of your Lordships read the figures which were given in The Times a few days ago by Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, whose letter embodied the opinions of, I believe, the large majority of people interested in afforestation. It is known that under forestry 100 acres of land will support a man. It is equally the fact that 100 acres can be obtained at between £2 and £3 an acre; and taking into consideration houses, etc., you should be able to settle individual men on the land at an expenditure of not much more than £1,000. But there is this great difference, that while every man settled under forestry is an addition to the population on the land, the settlement of men by a division of land already farmed simply means in many cases replacing one class by another. Further, you are certain of a return from forestry, whereas in the case of small holdings it is well known that many of them cannot be made to pay. I submit this Amendment chiefly for the reason that it would make this experiment go quicker, because by having one authority you would get over departmental difficulties. You would also, by having one Committee, be able to have a stronger body and one which would command public confidence; and the differences in the law between the two countries could be dealt with by means of sub-committees. I am certain that unless you have something entirely dissociated from the present method of administration of land in Scotland, you will not get anything like the support which you ought to have to ensure the success of this scheme.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("land") insert ("in England and Scotland").—(Lord Lovat.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My noble friend made an interesting speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, but unfortunately for me he did not stay to hear my reply. I would have pointed out to him then, had he been able to remain, and I point out to him now, that this Bill does not for one

347
moment profess to be part of the Government schemes for dealing with all the national obligations to discharged sailors and soldiers. It never has professed to be part of our method of dealing with demobilisation. In the same way with afforestation. The Government are deeply alive to the importance of afforestation after the war, and I am glad of this opportunity of assuring the House that this is so. But neither demobilisation nor afforestation is the subject or object of this Bill. This is simply a small experimental measure in small holdings, which may have an ultimate effect in dealing with the problem of demobilisation, but it is not in itself a contribution to that problem except in a very small degree.
What this Amendment proposes is to abolish the Scottish Office and the Scottish Board of Agriculture for the purposes of this Bill. The noble Lord cannot expect me to accept his Amendment. To get rid of the Scottish Office and the Scottish Board of Agriculture by the side wind of an Amendment would be to make the Bill extremely controversial in the House of Commons, and it would absolutely destroy any possible chance it may have of passing. Therefore I am quite unable to accept the Amendment, which has that object and no other. Nor can my noble friend expect me to endorse his criticisms of the administration of the Scottish Office. I am not familiar with Scottish affairs, and do not pretend to have the knowledge of them that he has. I can only say that in the various matters in which I have sought the assistance and co-operation of my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland, I have always met with great courtesy and consideration.
My noble friend is under a misapprehension. He talks of a Committee, and says that the proceedings of that Committee will be delayed and hampered by having to deal with two Departments instead of one. But there is no Committee. The colonies established in England and Wales will be dealt with exclusively by the Board of Agriculture for England and Wales; the colony to be established in Scotland will be dealt with exclusively by the Scottish Office. There will be no interdepartmentalism of any sort or kind. Therefore that criticism of my noble friend falls to the ground. For the reasons I have given I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: This Amendment is one of a series the object of which, as the noble Earl has correctly stated, is to get rid of the Scottish Board of Agriculture so far as the administration of this Bill is concerned. That is the whole meaning of the Amendment. What Lord Lovat proposes is that this Bill and the land to be taken under it, whether it be taken in England or Scotland, shall be under the administration of the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The noble Earl says he cannot and will not accept the Amendment, so I dare say my noble friend will not press it to a Division. At the same time I can assure the noble Earl that, so far as this Bill is concerned, it is putting a very great impediment in the way of its being brought successfully into operation in Scotland if it is administered under the Scottish Board of Agriculture. It is not the Secretary for Scotland at all. The Scottish Board of Agriculture is practically an independent body. There is another practically independent body called the Scottish Land Court. The universal experience of those in Scotland who have had to do with the Board of Agriculture there leads them to entertain the most profound dissatisfaction and discontent with the manner in which that Board has done its business; and if the Scottish Board of Agriculture is to be entrusted to ask people in Scotland to lend or sell land to it—it must be remembered that there is no compulsion in this Bill—I am afraid that the Bill will most likely be a dead letter so far as proprietors in Scotland are concerned. It is not necessary for me to trouble your Lordships further on the subject, but the view I have stated is the one which I must say I take with regard to this Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I cordially agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Lovat said. It will be a perfect farce if this Bill is passed in its present form. What your Lordships have to consider is whether this is to be the basis of a real measure to settle ex-Service men on the land after the war. I would point out that the Committee on whose recommendations the Bill is based had no Scottish representative upon it, nor do I think there was any representative of the North of England.
What has been said concerning the Scottish Board of Agriculture is perfectly correct. The noble Earl, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said that the

349
object was to run these small holdings on sound economic lines. I think I am right in saying that very few holdings, possibly not a single holding, created under the Scottish Board of Agriculture can be said to be on sound economic lines. That may be because it is impossible, or it may be due to bad management. But if that is the case with local men placed on the land by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, how is it possible to hope that ex-Service men can be placed in possession of sound economic holdings when they will have to pay probably double what is paid by the present small-holders? I venture to think it will be impossible, for them to make a living. It will simply be asking them to take up an occupation which is bound to end in bankruptcy.
I will give your Lordships one example, as regards my own property, of the way in which the Scottish Board of Agriculture carry these matters out. They took certain land. I objected first of all on the ground that it was unsuitable; secondly, on the ground that the buildings to be erected were not adequate or up to modern standard. The plans were somewhat improved, but the Land Court, when they came to give a decision on the subject, appended a note to the following effect—
"Owing to the distance of the holdings from the market and railway, and the exposed situation of the land, the scheme cannot be considered an ideal one; and as regards accommodation, while satisfactory provision is made the Court cannot avoid the expression of some sympathy with the contention of the proprietor that so far as construction and general appearance are concerned the buildings erected on the holding fall far short of the minimum standard adopted by the estate for a long period of time."
I ask, Is it desirable that a Government Department which selected unsuitable land and erected inferior buildings should be allowed to carry out this scheme which is supposed to be for the benefit of our ex-soldiers and sailors? Your Lordships must recognise that the scheme in this Bill ought to be made a much larger scheme. Are we to carry out the same old policy of "Wait and see"? As it is, it will take some years to ascertain the result of this scheme, far too long to give any experience in regard to the larger scheme. Therefore, I am sorry that this Amendment is not going to be accepted, because as the Bill stands the scheme as regards Scotland will be a dead failure. It will only throw discredit on the whole experiment. And I am afraid that, over and above that, our
350
ex-soldiers and sailors will have good reason to think that your Lordships are trifling with this question.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not intervene for more than a moment, but if I may venture to do so I would express my cordial sympathy with the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture in the difficult position in which he is placed. I hold no brief either for the Land Court or the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. Your Lordships may remember that I was consistently opposed to the formation of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. When I was at the Scottish Office I worked with extreme cordiality and friendship with the Board of Agriculture which has its headquarters in Whitehall. I thought then, and I think now, that it would be better to keep agriculture under one Board. I certainly do not think that the things which have been said about some of the actions of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland or of the Land Court are a bit too hard. But the point we have to decide to-day, there being a Board of Agriculture for Scotland, is whether it is possible, to pass it by, and whether, if you are to have a scheme of this kind applicable to Scotland, it is at all consistent with the existing state of matters to work the scheme, whether large or small, through any agency so far as it concerns Scotland except that of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland and the Land Court. On that ground I am afraid—I say it with some regret—that if you are to work this at; all in Scotland you must take the policy of the noble Earl opposite and allow it to be worked through the Scottish authority.
LORD LOVAT: I did not gather from the noble, Earl opposite whether this is to be regarded as the sum total of the effort to settle ex-Service men on the land. If it is not, how is he going to get over the fact that we should have an organisation which would invite the co-operation of those who have the land and the money? The argument that it is impossible to deal with this subject in Scotland outside the Board of Agriculture for Scotland leaves me comparatively cold. In the case of South Africa, the biggest experiment of land settlement of this sort, four Colonies were dealt with by a single Board. It does not really matter whether it is a committee or a sub-department. Presumably under this Bill the authority will be of sufficient magnitude to be a sub-department. Therefore I think the term "Committee,"

351
though not exact, covers the point. If it is to be a sub-department, why should we not have one sub-department to deal with the subject in England and Scotland? And as the money is Imperial money, I should hope that the sub-department, would deal with Ireland also. I have no doubt that a great many ex-soldiers and sailors will wish to settle overseas. Surely we might do something in co-operation with our Colonies overseas to facilitate that, so that there might be one body carrying out the whole of this work. We wish to do everything we can for those men who are going to settle on the land after the war. As to the remark of the noble Earl that this Bill does not form part of the solution of the problem of demobilisation, I never said it did. It is desired, I take it, to make the time in which this experiment is tried as short as possible, so that when we have settled that this method is a success we may possibly take these men immediately on leaving the Service and place them on the land. This should be made an experiment which would give possibilities of a great increase, seeing that a large number of ex-Service men will not be going back to indoor and city life but will wish to settle on the soil.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: On the big question which my noble friend has again raised, there is really no difference of opinion between him and myself. The problem of demobilisation will be one of very great magnitude and difficulty, but it will be manifestly impossible for any Government to undertake that fresh start in life for every one of these millions of men that they may desire. But it will be, in my judgment, part of the duty of the Government to assist those men who wish to go on to the land, whether here or in the Colonies—that is to say, to co-operate with the Dominion Governments; not to endeavour to administer any scheme in the Dominions, but to co-operate with the Dominion Governments in dealing with the problem. I can assure my noble friend that we are quite as keen as he is that this question, not only should not be neglected, but should be met sympathetically within such financial powers as the State can command at the close of the war. I am glad that he understands that this particular Bill is only an experimental one, and I can assure him that on the general principles of which he is so eloquent an advocate there is no difference of opinion between him and myself.
LORD LOVAT: Why not take action, then?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved, before the proviso at the end of subsection (1), to insert "Provided that at least one of the said small holding colonies shall be devoted to the purpose of reclamation of waste land." The noble Viscount said: The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has stated that this is an experimental scheme, and to carry it out he proposes to obtain, either by purchase or lease, some of the best land in different parts of the country on which to found these various colonies. That will necessarily involve clearing out some of the best farmers in the country, men who are large producers of food. There is no doubt that many of the men whom it is proposed to settle on these colonies will be without experience in agriculture, and possibly also without sufficient capital, which will have to be provided for them. At the commencement of this scheme these men will have to be paid wages, good wages in many cases.
It seems to me that if you are going to pay good wages to these men it is better that you should settle them on waste land, and then, after one or two years of cultivation and tillage, they would have an improving holding. If you adopted this principle, you would be able to have men on the land who would take some pride and pleasure in improving the piece on which they hoped eventually to settle. I am afraid that in many cases, if you put inexperienced men on the best land that you are able to get, the land will seriously deteriorate. Such a state of things cannot be to the interests of the country. The increase of food production should be as much encouraged as possible. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Grey), in his speech the other day, seemed to give colour to the idea that landowners willingly keep bad tenants on their farms, because be used these words—
"Landowners ought to be penalised who keep bad tenants on their farms."
I would remind the noble Earl that at the present moment, owing to the action of the Board of Agriculture, landowners are heavily penalised if they try to get rid of bad tenants. In justice to landowners, the noble Earl ought to have admitted that fact.
EARL GREY: Hear, hear. Naturally the two reforms would go together.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: If the difficulties at present in the way of a landowner getting rid of a bad tenant were removed, it would be much more easy for landowners to have their estates cultivated on a sound commercial basis, and on, perhaps, a more economic basis than the Board of Agriculture are likely to cultivate some of these small holdings. This, it seems to me, is a great opportunity, not only for settling men on land which they could improve, but also for giving an object lesson—if the Board of Agriculture employed the best authorities on tillage—as to how indifferent land could be reclaimed by careful cultivation. This idea, if adopted, could come in very well in Scotland, where portions of what is waste land at the present moment could be used either for forestry or to increase the land under cultivation. If an Amendment of this sort were inserted in the Bill the country would feel that, even if the other colonies which were started were not a success, at any rate in this case there would be an improved area of agricultural land producing food stuffs to the benefit and advantage of all.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, after line 11 insert:
"Provided that at least one of the said smallholding colonies shall be devoted to the purpose of reclamation of waste land."—(Viscount Galway.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is a small Bill, as I have often pointed out, but the noble Viscount's Amendment would make it very much smaller. Labour is quite unobtainable for the purposes of reclamation at the present time, and if the noble Viscount's Amendment were accepted it would mean that one of these three colonies would have to be abandoned altogether until after the war. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment. But I am in complete sympathy with the object which the noble Viscount has in view. I have been studying and working on this question of reclamation, as I have on the question of afforestation and on the general subject of land settlement on demobilisation, for many months past. I think my noble friend Lord Lovat is unreasonable in his impatience. The whole of this work is being studied in the Reconstruction Committee, and even if we had all our schemes ready, which I do not pretend, there would be no object that I can see in producing
354
at the present moment a scheme for general land settlement after the war. Nor can I produce to my noble friend a scheme for reclamation; but I ask him to take it from me that this is one of the subjects which we are going to tackle.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I sympathise with what fell from Lord Galway, but I think his proposal requires time, for this reason. We are supposed to be acting, and I have no doubt we are, in the interests of ex-Service settlers themselves. If we employ men to reclaim land, the question arises whether they ought not to be the potential owners, as in the case of those to whom in the Colonies grants of land are given, and who, if they stay a sufficient time and comply with certain conditions, become the owners of the freehold. I cannot imagine the system being very popular under which ex-soldiers and sailors were to become merely annual tenants under the State of land which they had reclaimed and brought into a proper state of cultivation. That would be extremely unpopular and indefensible from the point of view of the tenant farmer. I recognise the importance of reclaiming waste land, but I do not see how you could bring it into this scheme for the reason I have stated.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved an Amendment providing for compensation of the tenant for loss directly attributable to the quitting of his holding, and for a further sum not exceeding one year's rent against indirect loss.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, like the other Amendment standing in my name, is put down at the request of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the Amendments were drawn up by its Parliamentary Committee. Your Lordships will be aware that in this Bill there is no provision for protecting the interests of tenants who are turned out to make way for the ex-Service men who are to be brought in. It will be remembered that in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, no provision was made, owing to an oversight, for compensation to tenants on whom notice to quit was served with a view to the use of the land for the provision of small holdings. The hardship was so great that in 1910 the Government of that day carried an Amending Bill providing compensation

355
for tenants who were dispossessed. With the exception of the necessary alterations, the first part of my Amendment is almost word for word the provision in the Act of 1910. So strong was the feeling in the country at the time that tenant farmers were unfairly treated in receiving no compensation when they had to make way for other men, that the Treasury allowed this precedent to be made.
But my Amendment goes a little further, because at the end it provides for a further sum not exceeding one year's rent against indirect loss due to the quitting of the holding. The reason for putting that in is this. The Parliamentary Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture had to consider the strong objections made by a very influential valuer, Mr. Middleton, who said that in the hundreds of cases in which he had to settle compensation where land was taken for public purposes under the Small Holdings Act the tenant did not get the full and adequate compensation which he ought to have; and at his suggestion the provision was put into the Amendment that, in addition to the compensation which he would get under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the tenant should have further compensation for indirect loss not exceeding one year's rent. Naturally a man settled upon the land for many years has farmed it exactly as if it were his own, and put a great deal of time, money, and thought into it, and it is very hard that he should be turned out without getting adequate compensation. There are other indirect losses. For instance, a man living near a large town may have a successful milk round, the whole of which he loses, together with any business that he may have built up for the sale of butter and other commodities, when he is turned out of his holding. It is a common saying among agriculturists that when a man changes from one farm to another it takes him three years before he is able to understand the climatic conditions, the difference of soil, the general amenities of the farm, and to get the land into a high state of cultivation. That, I submit, is another reason why the tenant should have this additional compensation. I hope your Lordships will see that this is only a fair and just proposal, and will be inclined to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, after line 11 insert:
"Provided that where the Board, or a landlord at the request of the Board, terminates a tenancy
356
of land by notice to quit with a view to the use of the land or any part thereof by the Board for the provision of small holdings under this Act, the tenant upon quitting shall be entitled to recover from the Board or the landlord compensation for the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting which the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection with the land, and for a further sum not exceeding one year's rent against indirect loss due to the quitting of the holding, compensation to be awarded as provided by section one of the Small Holdings Act, 1910."—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD CHANNING OF WELLING-BOROUGH: I support the Amendment moved by my noble friend opposite. I have had a great deal to do with this particular question for years past in the Chambers of Agriculture, and I dare say the noble Earl is as well aware as I am of the feeling which was aroused in the country throughout farming circles by the omission from the Act of 1908 of a provision of this nature. I can assure the noble Earl, if he is not aware of it, that the feeling amongst the agricultural classes was of the strongest character with regard to this. I should like also to say that in the opinion of most of us the proposal in this Bill is a wise, generous, and sound proposal for an experiment in the direction of providing colonies of small holdings for ex-soldiers and sailors, and it is desirable that no obstacle of a sentimental or pecuniary nature should stand in the way of the successful carrying out of this scheme.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As Lord Strachie pointed out, his Amendment consists of two parts. The first part is an adaptation to this Bill of the provision in the Act of 1910. To that he adds a further provision to which I will refer presently. So far as the question is, Shall the provision in the Act of 1910 be adapted to this Bill? I am in complete accord with the two noble Lords who have spoken, and this provision shall be inserted in the House of Commons, which is the proper place for its insertion, as a question of money is involved. Therefore I hope your Lordships will understand that the compensation already provided in the existing Act will be applied to this Bill by a Government Amendment in the other House. And let me say that this applies also to the noble Lord's other Amendment on the Paper regarding the labourer, which is taken directly from the Act of 1908; and perhaps if I tell him that he will not think it necessary to move that

357
Amendment presently, because this will be applied in the same way.
But the noble Lord asks me to go further. He asks me to agree to "a further sum not exceeding one year's rent against indirect loss due to the quitting of the holding." I cannot accept that addition. It raises a very big question indeed. If a tenant who is disturbed for the sake of what may be described as a public purpose is to get a year's rent, why not a tenant who is disturbed for another public purpose—to wit, the small holdings established under county councils? If that principle were once admitted, I am quite sure there are people who would wish to apply it also to cases where the tenant had been disturbed in the ordinary operations of landlord and tenant. Those words would, as I say, raise a very big question; and I would remind the noble Lord that Lord Haversham's Committee made no such proposal. I am unable to hold out any hope of accepting these additional words either here or in another place. But if the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment, I will undertake that the provision in the Act of 1910 shall be applied to this Bill in the House of Commons.
LORD STRACHIE: I am a new member of this House, but I confess I cannot understand the noble Earl's statement that this is an Amendment which ought not to originate in this House. He says it is a House of Commons Amendment. Surely if that is so, this is a Bill which ought to have originated in the House of Commons. The noble Earl takes power under the Bill to buy 6,000 acres of land; also there is the provision as regards expenses under Clause 5; and in Clause 2 there is the power, with the consent of the Treasury, of making grants and advances. I should be the last person to want to interfere with anything involving the privileges of the House of Commons, but perhaps the noble Earl will explain to the House why this Bill, if it is a Money Bill, did not originate in another place. If it is not a Money Bill, then clearly your Lordships are being asked to give up your right to amend the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not profess to be an authority on that mysterious question of the privileges of the House of Commons, but I certainly think they have often been stretched too far. That has been the view I have expressed on the
358
other side of the Table, and I have not changed my view. But as I do not want this Bill to go down to the other House in a form which will raise unnecessary questions, I prefer, if the noble Lord and the House will kindly consent, that this particular matter should be dealt with in the House of Commons.
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot help saying that the question which I think is much more likely to be raised in another place is whether this Bill ought to have originated here. I know something about the feelings of hon. Members in another place, having spent many years there, and I am confident that they would never raise a point on the question of giving compensation to agricultural labourers and tenant farmers.
LORD HENMAGE: I am anxious not to interfere with the conduct of the Bill, but I cannot help thinking that we are going to create a very dangerous precedent if we say that we cannot in this House carry out the machinery of the Bill because it verges on a Money Bill. Either it is a Money Bill or it is not. If it is a Money Bill, it ought to have originated in the House of Commons. If it is not a Money Bill, then I maintain that we are perfectly entitled in this House to put into it a provision which is already in another Act of Parliament. At the same time I agree with my noble friend Lord Selborne with regard to the difference between the first part of the Amendment and the addendum, which is not in the 1910 Act. I think it is a very controversial question, and one which will have to be considered with regard to other matters. But with regard to the right of your Lordships' House to put this Amendment into the Bill so far as it is copied from the old Act, I am bound to repeat that I think it would be a very dangerous precedent to admit that we have not the right to do it. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment in so far as the first part of it is concerned, and I do not think the House of Commons will raise any objection.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I must press the noble Earl in charge of the Bill on this point, because frankly I do not understand his answer. The noble Lord opposite wants to provide in this Bill that tenants whose land is taken away shall be compensated. That is reasonable enough. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill says, You cannot

359
do that, because of the question of the privilege of the House of Commons. But what is he doing himself? He is initiating here a Bill which finds money for buying up the rights of landlords.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It does not provide money.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: Then it provides machinery. I will put it that way. The noble Lord opposite does not propose to find money either. He merely says, Let Us extend the machinery to buy up the rights of the tenant. We will assume roughly, that the rights of the landlord must be worth at least five times what the rights of the tenants are. If the Government are in order in a Bill originating in this House in setting up machinery which buys five-sixths of the rights of the land, how can the noble Lord opposite be out of order in extending that machinery so that it buys the other one-sixth? I think the noble Earl might explain his point of view further.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is not a subject on which I have ever professed to be an authority. I did not want to run an unnecessary risk. But if noble Lords feel strongly on the subject, and think that it would be going too far in caution to take the line which I have indicated, I am prepared to run the risk with them and to accept the Amendment. I must, however, ask the noble Lord to omit the words "or the landlord," because they are not included in the existing Statute.
LORD HENEAGE: The noble Earl does not accept the second part of the Amendment?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No; I accept the Amendment down to "land," leaving out the words "or the landlord."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl omits the latter part of the Amendment beginning "and for a further sum not exceeding"?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order that we may have it right, I will read the proviso in the form in which it is accepted by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill—
Provided that where the Board, or a landlord at the request of the Board, terminates a tenancy of land by notice to quit with a view to the use of the land or any part thereof by the Board for the provision of small holdings under this Act,
360
the tenant upon quitting shall be entitled to recover from the Board compensation for the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting which the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or inconnection with, the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection, with the land.
LORD STRACHIE: I think the last words in the Amendment as on the Paper go in.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That is the question as to which I want direction—namely, whether "compensation to be awarded as provided by section one of the Small Holdings Act, 1910" should remain in the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It will require a little adjustment to be made on Report.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put the Amendment in the form in which I read it a moment ago.
LORD STRACHIE: Does the noble Earl object to putting in "compensation to be awarded as provided by section one of the Small Holdings Act, 1910"? There must be some machinery, and this adopts the machinery of the Act of 1910.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It does not run properly in that form.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I understand that the provisions of the Bill provide for a maximum of only 6,000 acres being taken. Now 6,000 acres over the whole of Great Britain is a very small amount; and under Clause 9 of the Bill there is a direction that 2,000 of these 6,000 acres shall be taken in Scotland. If Clause 9 is agreed to as it stands, it is virtually a direction that part of this scheme shall apply to Scotland; and this leaves only 4,000 acres for the whole of England and Wales.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think not. If the noble Lord looks at the Bill he will see that it provides for 6,000 acres for England and 2,000 for Scotland.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: The 2,000 acres for Scotland are additional?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I thought it was 6,000 acres for the whole.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No; 8,000.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: At any rate, 8,000 acres for the whole of Great Britain is very small. I want to insert "eight" instead of "six" in the proviso at the end of subsection (1). This would raise the total area of the land to be acquired in England and Wales—excluding the 2,000 acres in Scotland—to 8,000 acres. And I hope that the noble Earl will also let me insert a proviso that 2,000 of those 8,000 acres should be in Wales. I am rather afraid that if a provision of this kind is not inserted in the Bill no experimental settlement will be set up in Wales; and we have in Wales, happily, several landowners who have already expressed their willingness to offer land suitable for this purpose. In Wales, where we have a good number of small holdings in proportion to farms, the counties where; you could set up such a scheme with advantage are not many. Land has been offered in Anglesey and in two other counties which I am told is very suitable and which can be taken from the existing holders without any hardship owing to accidental circumstances. That being so I should like to insert words to increase the area in England and Wales to 8,000 acres, and later I would move the insertion of a provision that one of the experiments should be made in Wales. I do not know whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could see his way to accept that Amendment. I would remind him that the Bill as it stands is a very small one, and even as an experiment I do not think 8,000 acres in the whole of Great Britain is enough. But if he cannot accept the Amendment, I would ask him at any rate to assure us that as far as he is concerned he will try to get one of these experiments tried in Wales, where the people are exceedingly anxious to have it for the benefit of Welsh soldiers.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("six") and insert ("eight").—(Lord St. Davids.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment. The scheme of the Government is confined to 6,000 acres in England and Wales and 2,000 in Scotland, and it would be a complete departure from the scheme were I to accept any enlargement of its scope. The noble Lord asks me whether I can hold
362
out a hope of establishing one of these three colonies in Wales. I think I may repeat what I have already said to-day to a deputation of Welsh Members of Parliament drawn from both political Parties. I pointed out to them that, if this Bill attempted to deal on a national basis with the question of small holdings or of the settlement of discharged sailors and soldiers, Wales would, of course, be entitled to a definite share of the provision made. But this, as I explained, was quite different. It was an experiment, a small experiment, and I could not promise that one of the colonies would necessarily be placed in Wales. I do not admit any claim on the ground of nationality on behalf either of Wales or of England to a definite share of these three colonies. I should feel perfectly entitled to put all three of them in Wales, if I found there the best sites; and I should feel equally entitled to put all I three in England if the best sites offered happened to be in England. Therefore I can only say, with regard to any offers made from Wales, that they will receive exactly the same careful consideration as offers made from England. I cannot say more than that.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: As a member of the Departmental Committee, may I say that I am extremely glad to hear from the noble Lord opposite that there is such a desire on the part of Wales to have one of these colonies established in the Principality. I say so for this reason. We took a great deal of trouble to get witnesses from Wales to express their views before our Committee, but we never succeeded in getting a private individual or a representative of any body in Wales to give evidence. I am therefore glad to learn that Wales does take an interest in the subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does that cover the noble Lord's next Amendment?
LORD ST. DAVIDS: Yes. I do not move.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading I undertook to try to find words to indicate that the intention of the Government is to make provision in the first instance and mainly for ex-soldiers and sailors. I told your Lordships at the time that I could not accept words that would tie my hands too much at the present or

363
in the future. The words that I have put on the Paper and now move I venture to think do indicate the intention, and bind me or my successors in office from time to time to adhere to the intention therein expressed—that is, that in the selection of persons to be settled on the land so acquired the Board shall give preference to persons who have served in the naval or military forces of the Crown in the present war. I hope your Lordships will accept those words and not insist on the more stringent form of words which have been suggested by more than one of my noble friends, because, as I pointed out on the Second Reading, if these colonies are a success a time must come when the successors of the first colonists cannot necessarily be soldiers or sailors or have served in the present war. I must also have my hands free at the present moment to introduce into these colonies that very small proportion of teachers who will give assistance to ex-soldiers and sailors who have not had previous agricultural experience. I can assure your Lordships that I have no other object but to make these colonies for ex-soldiers and sailors, and that any civilian element will be reduced to the smallest possible dimensions.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("acres") insert ("and that in the selection of persons to be settled on the land so acquired the Board shall give preference to persons who have served in the naval or military forces of the Crown in the present war").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment on the Title. [The noble Earl had on the Paper an Amendment to the Title, after ("Colonies") to insert ("for sailors and soldiers returned from active service abroad").] I am quite satisfied with the words now proposed by Lord Selborne.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I also have an Amendment which comes later referring to the same subject. But perhaps I had better defer any remarks that I have to make until we reach it. I have no objection, however, to the words which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill proposes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE: I need say very little in moving the next Amendment, as I understood from the noble Earl just now that he was quite ready to accept it, as
364
the words are taken from the Act of 1908. It was necessary in the Small Holdings Act of 1908 to put in provisions for the protection of labourers who might lose their employment or be turned out of their cottages owing to the acquisition of land for the purposes of small holdings; and it will be still more necessary to see that labourers are protected in the case of these colonies, because the noble Earl proposes to take large tracts of 2,500 acres each and clear them entirely. Therefore practically the whole of the labourers will be turned out of their homes and holdings and will lose their employment. It may be said that in these days they can soon get other employment. That may be so in the case of the great majority, but I submit that no labourer ought to suffer harm in connection with this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, after line 19 insert as a new subsection:
(3) "Where a labourer, who has been regularly employed on any land acquired by the Board for the purposes of this Act, proves to the satisfaction of the Board that the effect of the acquisition was to deprive him of his employment, and that there was no employment of an equally beneficial character available to him in the same locality, the Board shall pay to him such compensation as they think just for his loss of employment or for his expenses in moving to another locality, and any sum so paid shall be treated as part of the expenses of the acquisition of the land."—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I accept the Amendment. But it must be in the same words as the section of the Act of 1908 from which it is copied, and there is one word different.
LORD STRACHIE: Which is the word?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You have put in "shall" instead of "may."
LORD STRACHIE: May I explain that? The Parliamentary Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture were unanimous in thinking that this was not a case where it ought to be in the discretion of the Board of Agriculture whether they would give compensation or not; and I am surprised that the noble Earl should object to making it obligatory upon his Board to give compensation in this matter. It may be said with regard to the other Act that the power has been very little used. But it is very different where you clear the whole countryside.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that Acts of Parliament constantly contain the word "may" when he and I, as laymen, would have put in "shall." I am strictly within my rights in adhering to the exact words of the principal Act. There would be no advantage in having this Act and the principal Act differing.
LORD STRACHIE: I was responsible for this particular provision in the Act when it originated in the House of Commons. It was inserted in that form because it was thought undesirable to tie the hands of the county councils at that particular moment, and it was thought very unlikely that the discretion would be ever used. The noble Earl has not said why he objects to having his hands tied.
LORD HENEAGE: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Strachie has not accepted the offer of the noble Earl, because it is perfectly fair that we should take the provision as we find it in the other Act. It was well considered at the time the word "may" was used, and I think the word "may" should be continued in this clause. I therefore move that the word "may" be substituted for the word "shall" in the noble Lord's Amendment.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
In line 6 of the Amendment, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Heneage.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of Board to promote co-operation in connection with small holding colonies.
2. With the consent of, and subject to regulations made by the Treasury, the Board may promote the formation or extension of societies on a co-operative basis, having for their object, or one of their objects, the profitable working of holdings provided under this Act, whether in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking, or insurance, or otherwise, and may assist any such society by making grants or advances to the society, or guaranteeing advances made to the society, upon such terms and conditions as to rate of interest and repayment or otherwise, and on such security, as the Board think fit.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I hope my noble friend will consider carefully the point of my Amendment to this clause. We have been constantly told, and it is the case, that this is an experimental Bill on a small scale. That being so, it is of the greatest importance that all the elements which go to prove whether the scheme is a successful one or not should be upon strictly sound economic lines. The noble Earl (Lord Selborne) stated, in his speech on the Second Reading, that he deprecated any idea of this degenerating into a philanthropic scheme, and I am sure that is the view of all those interested in the welfare of the scheme. It is part of the necessary consequence of the Bill that you are not merely settling men but you are displacing others. For every 100 acres you take you displace certainly not fewer than three professional agriculturists. In addition to that, it may be that adjoining these State colonies you may have professional agriculturists, market gardeners, men who have attained to their position by their own industry and their own wits. I do not think it is fair that these State tenants whom you are setting up should be placed in a superior position to compete against them. It would be unfair if they were able—as I understand from the reading of this clause as it now stands would be the case—to borrow money on benevolent terms at 3 per cent., whereas the professional agriculturists adjoining would be only able to get money from their banks at the market rate of 5 per cent.
To meet this case I propose that the lending of money for purposes in connection with this clause should be at the market rate of interest, and that loans should not be on more than two-thirds of the capital value of the security. That is the general rule applicable to all sound financial arrangements. I do not want it for one moment to be supposed that this Amendment is antagonistic to the principle of the Bill. Hitherto none of these experiments have been successful. I defy my noble friend to point to a single case in which the creation of annual tenants or State tenants has been a success. However, let us give this experiment a fair trial. But in order that it may have a fair trial and be of some guidance to us in regard to larger schemes hereafter, we ought to know that the basis of all the various expenditures upon which the charge to these tenants is to be made is a commercial and a fair one. If all sorts of

367
subterraneous and benevolent advantages are introduced you will never arrive at the real fact as to whether it is a safe thing to extend the operation of these colonies and to use the State as a landlord on a much larger scale. It is for that reason that I very respectfully urge this Amendment upon my noble friend. I hope he may sec his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("society") to the end of the clause and insert ("at the market rate of interest and on not more than two-thirds of the capital value of the security and on such conditions as to repayment as the Board, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may think fit").—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I want to say a few words to reinforce what has been said by the noble Earl opposite with regard to the extreme difficulty of this experiment. Like my noble friend near me, Lord Grey, I welcome the experiment of the co-operative principle. I think it is a great pity that co-operation so far has had very little success in Great Britain. It has had some success in Ireland, a success chiefly due to the disinterested and persistent labours of Sir Horace Plunkett, who has, I am sorry to say, received very little encouragement in the quarters where he ought to have received it. And he, I think, was to some extent guided by what he learnt in Denmark, where the co-operative principle has been carried further than anywhere else. It has been considerably adopted in other places, particularly in Australia, where co-operative dairying similar to that carried on in New Zealand has been prosecuted very successfully.
But the whole subject is so difficult that I think the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government will be well advised if they study carefully all that is recorded on the subject, and the reasons why so many of the experiments have failed. The experiment of settling soldiers is one of the oldest in history. It gave occasion to the first Bucolic of Virgil, and since his time by Roman Emperors and other persons it has been constantly tried and seldom succeeded. I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Selborne that he would do well, if he has not done so already, to obtain full information with regard to the cooperative colonies planted both in New Zealand and in Australia. I think a great deal has happened there which would be of importance to us. After all, national
368
aptitudes and national traits count for something, and the Australians are people whose qualities are substantially the same as those of Englishmen; and it is important to know the difficulties which English persons set down to do this kind of thing experience when they are asked to work together in a co-operative way which is quite foreign to our national habits and national character.
Lord Lovat, earlier this evening, called attention to the question of applying this Bill for the purpose of reclaiming waste land and particularly of afforestation, a subject on which we have had some extremely interesting articles lately from one who is very well competent to speak—I refer to Sir John Stirling-Maxwell. That is rather outside the scope of this Bill though it is work which could well be done co-operatively. The employment of woodlands is a thing easier to take up than modern scientific agriculture, and if the noble Lord succeeds in prosecuting this experiment successfully I hope that later on after the war, when the present difficulties to which he has referred may have ceased to exist, he will go on and see whether something cannot be done as regards afforestation on the general lines he is laying down now. It was said with great truth by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Portsmouth) that the finance of the scheme is all-important, because if the scheme succeeds financially it may be capable of indefinite extension. Therefore, it is impossible to take too much trouble, even going down to the smallest details, to see that everything is done in the most economical way, and that the finance is such as to make the scheme offer a good promise for the future.
LORD CHANNING OF WELLING-BOROUGH: On this matter I have no doubt that my noble friend on the Front Bench (Lord Selborne) will take the same view that I do, that it is far better to leave the Bill as it stands and to ensure the greatest elasticity of movement in dealing with co-operators. I say that advisedly, because I took very great interest in promoting the success of the Act of 1908 in my own county, which I then represented in another place. Many conferences were held and many efforts made to enlist cooperative action to carry out the policy of small holdings in a successful way. But what was the chief stumbling block? It

369
was that some of the Commissioners of the Board of Agriculture imposed just the sort of conditions which the noble Earl opposite would wish to impose now, over-strict and tyrannical conditions, which simply paralysed the activity of the co-operative societies. I know of more than one Small Holdings Society in Northamptonshire which gave up the co-operative principle in despair, simply owing to the regulations laid down by one of the Commissioners.
EARL GREY: I cordially agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, and I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will adhere to the clause as it stands. At the same time I concur with the noble Earl who moved the Amendment that you cannot point to a single case of successful land settlement by the Government. But this experiment is on an entirely new principle. All the other experiments have been individualistic; but this one is based upon the application of the co-operative principle. In other countries these co-operative experiments have been successful. The object of this Bill, as I understand, is to enable His Majesty's Government to make an experiment of land settlement on lines which have been successful in the Dominions. Therefore I would express the very sincere hope that the machinery should be as elastic as possible, and not bound up by red tape and by conditions which might throttle a very interesting experiment.
LORD JOICEY: So far as co-operation is concerned, I am with the noble Earl who has just spoken. But I am altogether against him with regard to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl opposite. This is an experiment which, if successful, will go far and lead to the development of these colonies to an enormous extent, affecting millions of money. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that the first experiment should be one which will show whether or not it is going to be an economic success. If the Treasury are empowered to advance money at less than the market rate, where is your economic success? This is a vital question, and I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will accept the Amendment. Without it you cannot get a fair trial of the experiment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I must say that the noble Lord who has just sat down has a view of the Treasury which has never
370
occurred to me. He seems to think that there is a danger of the Treasury lending money to another Public Department at a philanthropic rate of interest. My experiences in three or four Government Departments must have been singularly unfortunate, because I have never found the Treasury opening its philanthropic arms to me or lending money for any public purpose whatever except upon what seemed to me to be the hardest rates. And that is really the answer to my noble friend who moved the Amendment. The whole thing is subject to the Treasury. Is it reasonable to imagine that the Treasury will give money away? Whoever heard of the Treasury lending money at too cheap a rate of interest? My only fear is that the Treasury may be so stern on the subject of the rate of interest and the amount of the sinking fund that we may be able to do very little with this clause. But it is not a new clause. This is an old clause; it is Section 49 of the Act of 1908 adapted to this Bill. Therefore all that I am asking your Lordships to do is to agree to a clause to which you have already agreed in connection with the institution of co-operative societies in regard to small holdings, and to apply a machinery which, although I admit it has not been extensively used as yet in connection with the previous Act, has, so far as I know, stood the test of criticism and experience.
Let me refer to what Lord Bryce said about the experience of co-operative land societies in Australia and New Zealand. I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to those experiments. I am not familiar with them, but I will at once see that we gain all the experience we can from that of our fellow-subjects in the Antipodes. I also thank him for his suggestion that afforestation may possibly be dealt with on the same basis. If he has time I hope he may elaborate that to me on some future occasion, because I confess the idea is new. Forestry has been miserably neglected in England and Scotland by every Government, Conservative and Liberal, and this war has found us short of the supplies of timber which this country ought to be producing for itself. Of course we are able to import it, but to import during a war like this, with the ever-increasing calls upon our shipping, is in itself a handicap; and we are using now our coniferous timber, such as it is, at such a rate that when the war is at an end there will be hardly any

371
coniferous timber left in this country. Therefore it will become a matter of prime State necessity to establish a real forestry policy for Scotland, England and Wales. But unless I am very much mistaken, the lead in this matter will have to be taken by the State. It will be quite beyond the power of private individuals to meet the necessities of the case. If my noble friend will be so kind as to make his contribution to the consideration of this question which is now being undertaken in my Department I shall be grateful to him. For the reasons I have given, I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am sorry that my noble friend cannot accept my Amendment. I am not at all reassured by the somewhat imaginary picture he has drawn as to the strict and insistent view taken by the Treasury with regard to finance. That may have been the case in the days of Mr. Gladstone, but certainly has not been so in the more recent régimes. What I feel strongly is this. If this is to be an experiment which, if it proves to be a success, will be largely adopted, we ought to be assured that these colonies do not get any adventitious advantages over other commercial enterprises. Unless that is assured we may be certain that the loss to the State will be considerable. More than once I have heard my noble friend Lord Grey refer to the great work which Mr. Rhodes did in Rhodesia. That was with the money of the Chartered Company, and the company has not paid one shilling in dividends and is not likely to. I should be sorry if the millions of money to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers were to be administered on philanthropic lines like that. It is no use pressing this matter, having regard to the views of my noble friend, and I withdraw my Amendment. I am glad, however, that this discussion has taken place, and I hope that another discussion may arise in the other House, where this Bill, seeing that it involves the expenditure of millions of money, should have been introduced.
EARL GREY: I cannot understand why the noble Earl should endeavour to find in the support which it was my pride and privilege to give Mr. Rhodes in this connection an analogy for my support of the co-operative principle in this Bill. Let me tell the noble Earl that Mr. Rhodes never applied the principle of co-operation to the
372
agriculture of Rhodesia. The noble Earl pointed out that millions have been spent in Rhodesia by the shareholders of the Chartered Company, and that they have never received one penny in the shape of dividends. But they have the glory of having added 750,000 square miles to the Empire out of their money, without having called upon the Empire to pay a sixpence out of the taxes of the people.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Powers of management of land acquired.
4. The Board shall, in relation to any land acquired by them under this Act or under Part I of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, whether acquired before or after the passing of this Act, have power—

(a) to let or manage the land or improve the same by the erection of buildings or otherwise;

(b) to enfranchise the land, and to purchase or redeem any land tax, quit rent, chief rent, tithe rentcharge, or other rentcharge or any perpetual sum issuing out of the land;

(c) subject to compliance with any conditions prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury, or with the consent of the Treasury, to sell or exchange the land.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had the following Amendment on the Paper:
Page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert
"(a) to let the land, giving preference to sailors and soldiers returned from active service abroad;
"(b) themselves to manage the land or improve the same by the erection of buildings or otherwise, with the intention of the land being occupied ultimately by sailors and soldiers returned from active service abroad."
The noble Earl said: I put down this Amendment for this reason. The noble Earl, on the Second Reading of the Bill, told us that he could not limit himself to ex-soldiers and sailors in distributing the land, because it was necessary that there should be certain persons skilled in this matter to assist and give instructions to the ex-Service men. It was to meet that point that paragraph (b) of my Amendment was intended. It would enable the Board themselves to manage the land or improve the same by the erection of buildings or otherwise, with the intention of the land being occupied ultimately by ex-soldiers and sailors. But if the noble Earl thinks it

373
better not to insert the Amendment I will not move it. It seemed to me, however, that it was giving him in express terms the power which he thought he ought to have with regard to the occupation of a certain portion of the land.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am much obliged to my noble friend, but I do not think the Amendment necessary.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Expenses and receipts of Board.
5.—(1) Any expenses of the Board incurred in the exercise of any of their powers under this Act in relation to land acquired or to be acquired under the Development and Road Improvement founds Act, 1909, shall be defrayed out of any advances made to the Board for the purpose under that Act: and any sums received by the Board in respect of any such land shall be applied as the Treasury may direct.
(2) Any sums expended or received by the Board in pursuance of their powers under this Act in relation to land acquired under this Act, shall be paid out of or into the Small Holdings Account.
VISCOUNT GALWAY [on behalf of Lord HARRIS]VISCOUNT GALWAY [on behalf of Lord HARRIS] moved to add the following new subsection to the clause—
"(3) There shall be presented to Parliament annually, as soon as possible after the accounts of the working year have been completed, a return with balance sheet and profit and loss account for each colony, and with balance sheet and profit and loss account for each holding, the holdings to be distinguished by numbers."
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Harris has asked me to move the Amendment standing in his name, and I do so with the greater pleasure because I am sure it will commend itself to your Lordships and I think it will not be regarded as unreasonable by His Majesty's Government. This Bill is going to affect a large sum of public money, and on looking through it your Lordships will see that there is no provision for an annual report. I am sure it is the wish of the President of the Board of Agriculture that this experimental scheme, about which there is so much doubt, should be judged on its merits, and the only way for that to be done is to provide for an annual return to be submitted to Parliament. I submit that when Parliament votes money Parliament has a right to have a return showing how the money has been spent. Some do not think that there is the certainty of this scheme being the success which the President of the Board of Agriculture anticipates.
My noble friend Lord Harris did not understate the case the other day, because on looking at the matter your Lordships will see that the President of the Board of Agriculture expects to get £2 an acre land, and these allotments are to consist of about 20 acres; that will mean a rent of at least £40 a year. Then the occupier of the holding would expect to get at least £60 a year out of it to keep himself. That makes £100. Taking £10 an acre as the capital necessary for a farm, that would mean £200 for the 20 acres. My noble friend wishes me to say that in this case these smallholders would require to make 50 per cent. on their money, and that if every small holding were as successful as that there would be many more of them and a greater demand for small holdings in England than is the case at the present moment.
I do not hold the optimistic view entertained by the President of the Board of Agriculture, because various schemes of this sort have been tried in England and have not proved a success. I should like to remind the President of the Board of Agriculture that in the Journal of the Board of May this year there are certain statistics proving how a colony did not succeed. In 1906 the late Mr. George Herring left a large sum of money to found a colony for poor people. Land was bought, and in 1910 about fifty families were settled on this colony. It very shortly came about, the small-holders having no capital, that the trustees had to make an allowance of 10 s. a week to each occupier, with an additional 1s. for every child. The result was that in 1911 the trustees of this estate began to realise that they had made a mistake in putting inexperienced men on the land, and the upshot of it was that in 1912 an inquiry was made into the matter. Twenty men out of the fifty were given leases, but since they all failed to pay any rent the whole scheme has been wound up. That, it was proved, was owing partly to the men having no capital, partly to having to give maintenance allowances, and partly to the fact that the men were unsuited for the work. In view of that experience, quoted in the Board of Agriculture Journal, I am sure it will be recognised that it is necessary that Parliament should be supplied with an annual report showing how this scheme has operated. I should like to suggest that when this return is made statistics should also be given as to the amount of produce sold off the various

375
colonies, so that the public can judge which was doing the most good for the country—the good farmers who had been turned off the land, or the new men put upon it. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my noble friend's name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, after line 39 insert the following new subsection:
"(3) There shall be presented to Parliament annually, as soon as possible after the accounts of the working year have been completed, a return with balance sheet and profit and loss account for each colony, and with balance sheet and profit and loss account for each holding, the holdings to be distinguished by numbers."—(Viscount Galway.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The principle for which my noble friend contends is perfectly reasonable, and if he will withdraw his Amendment now I will move a new clause later to provide for this.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I wall withdraw the Amendment subject to power to raise the point again on Report if the noble Earl's new clause is not satisfactory.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Your Lordships will see an Amendment in my name to omit Clause 5, and to insert a new clause. I put down this Amendment because I found that the authorities in another place would take exception to Clause 5 as it stands at present, but they will take no exception whatever to any part of the Bill if this Amendment is made. What will happen in another place is that Clause 5 will be reinserted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5, and insert as a new clause:
" Postponement of exercise of powers.
" 5. The powers conferred on the Board by this Act shall not be exercised unless and until provision is made by Parliament for defraying the expenses incurred by the Board in the exercise of such powers."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to sell land to Board for perpetual rent.
6. Any person having power (whether subject to any consent or conditions or not) to sell land authorised to be acquired by the Board may, subject to the like consent and conditions, grant or demise the land in perpetuity or for any term
376
of years to the Board at such fee farm or other rent, secured by such condition of re-entry or otherwise as may be agreed upon, and with or without a right of renewal, or grant to the Board an option to acquire the land:
Provided that, where the power to sell arises under the Settled Lands Acts, 1882 to 1890, the powers conferred by this section shall be exercised only with the consent of the trustees of the settlement for the purposes of those Acts, or with the sanction of the court.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The reason for the addition to this clause standing in my name is that at present Crown Land is limited in regard to the length of lease that may be granted. This Amendment will enable leases to be granted sufficiently long for the purposes of these colonies.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, after line 13, insert as a new subsection:
"(2) This section shall extend and apply to land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, and to land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to insert here the new clause to which I referred during the discussion on Lord Galway's Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert as a new clause:
"The Board shall present to Parliament an annual report of their proceedings under this Act which shall include a statement of the financial position of each colony."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Might I suggest that the noble Earl should provide for the inclusion in the annual report of the further details necessary to carry out the views of Lord Harris?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Our object will be to give an absolutely fair and complete view of the financial position of each colony. I do not want to put in words regarding details the effect of which I cannot foresee.
LORD JOICEY: The noble Earl ought to include the words "showing the profit and loss." The financial position may not always show that. I think we ought to know exactly what is the result of the year's working. I hope the noble Earl will submit the statements in such a form as will show whether or not the colonies are financial successes.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I quite agree. That is the whole object of this proposed new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Application to Scotland.
9. This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund shall be substituted for the Small Holdings Account, "easements" mean servitudes, and "small holding" means a small holding as defined in section thirty-three of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911:

(b) Paragraph (b) of section three and sections six and eight of this Act shall not apply:

(c) Section one shall be read and construed as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acres.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The first Amendment in paragraph (a) is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund shall be substituted for the Small Holdings Account").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, paragraph (b), leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, before the Bill is reported to the House I should like to ask my noble friend what provision he proposes to make for limiting the expenditure on stall in connection with this Bill. There has been no greater abuse than the manner in which these Bills are passed and an unlimited power given for the creation of staff, Parliament subsequently finding that, without the slightest idea of justification, new posts amounting to £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, or £50,000 a year have been set up. Constant representations have been made that where this is done it should be shown by a clause in italics giving the power, and also that we should be given an estimate, of what it is intended to do in the way of creating such staff.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Is it Departmental staff of which the noble Viscount is talking?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Any number of staff may he set up under Clause 5 provided they are paid out of certain funds. What has been urged by the Retrenchment Committee is that there should always be given by the Minister in charge of a Bill a clear statement of the approximate staff which it is proposed to appoint, not the actual names or even the numbers, but what the expenditure is expected to be. Hitherto this has been one of the greatest abuses. And here in the middle of the war is another of these Bills, which I apprehend will lead to the same state of things as past measures. Gradually there will grow up a whole page of Estimates in order to carry out the expenditure in this Bill. I would request my noble friend not to ask us to take the Report stage until he is in a position to lay before us some such estimate as that for which I have asked.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot give the undertaking for which my noble friend asks, for reasons that I will make perfectly plain to him. I am starting this work with no additional staff. I have not added a single man to my staff for the purpose of bringing this Bill into operation, and I have been able to avoid this through the generosity of Captain Bathurst, who has come to my assistance. When the schemes are worked out I have not a doubt that an addition to the staff of the Department will be necessary, but it is quite impossible for me to give any estimate on that subject now, because I have not got a single one of the schemes in a position yet to put it to the Treasury. I only began work a few weeks ago. But I am quite confident, as regards these three colonies, that any addition to the staff of the Board of Agriculture would be a very small one. What the addition might be if the schemes are as successful as I hope, I am not in a position to prophesy. If the noble Viscount was referring also to the staffs that will be working in the actual colonies, as I told him on a previous occasion all expenses in connection with the colonies will be included in the cost of the colonies, except such as may be entailed in the first instance in educating ex-soldiers and sailors who are not experts in agriculture. I have consistently said—and noble Lords have approved my intention, although they may think me an optimist—that our object is

379
to make this an economic success, and that I am not embarking consciously on a scheme of philanthropy. But it is not in my power at the present moment to tell the noble Viscount what the ultimate effect on the staff of the Board of Agriculture may be.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It may not be in the power of the noble Earl to tell us this at the minute. But as soon as he has organised a colony will he, at the time when that colony is instituted and money is taken for it, make a return showing the amount of staff which he proposes to employ? I do not mean the staff of his own Department so much as the staff of educators of whom he spoke just now.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will certainly give that information at the earliest possible moment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My noble friend displays an almost Gladstonian aptitude for making a statement which is very pleasing and soothing to your Lordships' House, but which leaves open all the possibilities of the abuses that I apprehend will arise. As I understand, no staff will be needed at once; but the noble Earl's successors will not have any difficulty in following out my noble friend's words to the letter and yet establishing a considerable staff presently. There must be of necessity a large staff in the colonies themselves, and when the colonies once have staffs they will have to be superintended by the Board of Agriculture. So far from being satisfied, I am very much afraid that in this case as in many previous ones there has been no attempt on the part of the Board of Agriculture to estimate what their staff requirements will be to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I would ask my noble friend before he takes the Report stage to look into the matter and see whether he cannot give us rather more definite assurances.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 46.)

TOTAL DISABLEMENT PENSION.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government why totally disabled soldiers are not granted 25 s. per week pension as per Army Form B 218 P. dated 15th June, 1915, and to quote instances.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the question of totally disabled soldiers. The Army Form to which I refer in my Notice on the Paper says—
"The rate for a private soldier totally incapable of earning a livelihood will be 25 s. a week, with 2s. 6d. a week for each child (under age 16) born before discharge."
That is a definite promise made by the Army authorities. Then I have in my hand a recruiting paper which has been sent to me from the Headquarters in Dublin. It begins by asking the would-be recruit whether he has ever seriously considered how his financial position would be affected if he joined the Army. The paper continues in the form of a catechism, and I will read to your Lordships the portion bearing on the subject which I am bringing forward—
"Q.—I understand also that pensions are allowed to disabled soldiers?
"A.—That is so. Men disabled through war service are eligible for pensions, varying according to rank and the extent of their injuries. The rate for a private soldier totally incapable of earning a livelihood is 25 s. a week, with 2s. 6d. a week for each child under sixteen years of age born before he was discharged from the Army."
This recruiting paper was largely used in Ireland by the head recruiting committee. It was sent out to the local recruiting committees; and many men joined the Army understanding that they would have this pension. Again, in a pamphlet issued from the War Office during August of last year and headed" What the disabled soldier wants to know," there appears as the first paragraph—
"Every European soldier discharged as totally incapable of earning a livelihood owing to wounds or injuries, or sunstroke, received in action or in the performance of military duty…gets a pension of 25 s. a week, under the Royal Warrant of 21st May, 1915."
This promise, therefore, has been very definitely made by the Army authorities.
I will cite to your Lordships the cases of two men who were in the Dublin Fusiliers, and who, each of them, lost a leg in the present campaign. Previous to the war they were agricultural labourers, and now, naturally, they are totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood as agricultural labourers. Their names are Walsh and Drumin. Walsh is in receipt of only 10 s. 6d. a week. He says—
"It is very little for me, and I would be very grateful if you could do anything for me."

381
Drumin writes—
"I was wounded in action…. The pension I have is 25 s. a week for two months only; and then 10 s. 6d. a week!"
That was written a little while ago. He is now getting the 10 s. 6d. a week. I have instanced only two Irish cases which have come to my knowledge, but naturally there must be many other cases throughout the United Kingdom of soldiers totally incapacitated yet not in receipt of the 25 s. pension, which, as I have pointed out, had been distinctly promised to them. If an agricultural labourer loses a leg in the war, how can he possibly do the ordinary work of an agricultural labourer, such as digging, reaping with a scythe, pitching hay, or loading a dung cart? It is only fair that those who, as the result of losing a limb in the war, are unable to earn a livelihood should get the 25 s. a week. I hope that the answer which the noble Lord opposite will give to-day will be more satisfactory than the reply given to Lord Salisbury a short time ago. I feel strongly on this subject, as do Army officers who have spoken to me on the matter. Of course, a clerk who has lost a leg or an arm may still be able to earn some money at his desk. But it is different in the case of a man who has to work out of doors, and I cannot see how the Government can decline to pay him the full pension promised, especially when men were induced to join the Army voluntarily by such promises.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I am sure we all sympathise with my noble friend opposite in doing what he can to get the best possible terms for men who have done so well and suffered so much. On April 18 last I explained the whole story at the instance of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, and I think I correctly stated the arrangements for pensions and the principles upon which the matter was worked. I do not propose to repeat all I then said, but I may point out to my noble friend opposite, who perhaps was not in the House on that occasion, that the arrangements at Chelsea are under a Royal Warrant which is based upon representations of a Select Committee; of the House of Commons, I think in 1915. That was a very strong Committee, and included the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor. There may have been one other member, but I cannot for the moment recall his name.
382
As the noble Earl stated, where it is established that a man is totally incapacitated he would receive 25 s. a week plus 2s. 6d. a week for each child under sixteen years of age born before discharge. But, as laid down in the Report of the Committee to which I have referred, that incapacity does not refer to the man's actual trade or calling before he went to the war; it refers to what is known as his position in the general labour market. Experience has shown that men incapacitated from following their original line of business have in many cases been able to obtain other occupation from which they have received, we will say, 12 s. 6d.—half the amount of the total incapacity pension. The wage they receive is made up by the State to the amount of 25 s. I wish to lay stress on this, that the guide in this matter is not incapacity in one particular trade, but what is known as the man's value in the labour market.
The noble Earl spoke of two soldiers who had lost a leg each and were in receipt of 10 s. 6d. a week. This rate of 10 s. 6d. has been somewhat, modified. A man who has lost a leg at the hip gets 16 s., a man with a "short thigh" 14 s., a man who has lost his leg just above the knee 12 s. 6d., and a man who has lost his leg below the knee 10 s. 6d. For the amputation of an arm, if it is taken off at the shoulder, he gets for the right arm 16 s., for the left 15 s.; above or through the elbow, Ms. for the right, 13 s. for the left; and below the elbow, 11 s. 6d. for the right, 10 s. 6d. for the left. The 10 s. 6d. pensions to which my noble friend referred may have been made before this modification.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Yes, they were. But the men are still getting 10 s. 6d.
LORD SANDHURST: If my noble friend has cases of hardship, or cases in which he considers total incapacity is made out, and will be so good as to send particulars to me, if he thinks that is a more expeditious method—Chelsea is not at all anxious to delay matters, though of course the volume of business which has to be dealt with is very great—I can assure him of the most prompt and sympathetic consideration of those cases.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend opposite whether the promise to increase the staff

383
at Chelsea and the size of the building in which they work has been redeemed. In reply to a question which I put a little while ago, the noble Lord said that if a man lost a limb he received 25 s. a week. What I want to find out is whether the man is ever in the position of receiving 10 s. 6d. only when not earning anything from any other employment, or does he receive 25 s. until he earns money from some other employment.
LORD SANDHURST: I am speaking without notice, but in reply to the noble and gallant Lord's first question I can say this. I happened to go to Chelsea this afternoon to make myself acquainted with the answer for the noble Earl, and I found the hall crammed with papers in connection with cases and the place full of young ladies and stools—very uncomfortable it looked. They are doing everything they can to get the necessary increased accommodation. Lord Beresford's second question dealt with the case of a man who had lost a leg or an arm. My noble friend will remember that a man who has lost a limb receives 25 s. A man is not discharged, of course, immediately his leg or arm is amputated. He may wait perhaps a month until he gets better. Then he is provided free of charge with the best mechanical limb, and whilst he is getting accustomed to that leg or arm, or looking about for employment after he is able to use the artificial limb, he receives for a period of two months the 25 s. a week. I understand that in no case will he receive a less pension for the loss of the limb than 10 s. 6d. a week, irrespective of any wages he may earn.
THE EARL OF MAYC: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said with regard to the cases which I brought forward, and I shall certainly forward to him full information thereon. The noble Lord said something about the man's value in the labour market. I should like to ask any member of this House whether he would employ as an agricultural labourer a man who had lost a leg. Here you have two men who fought in the Dublin Fusiliers, uneducated Irish labourers. They have families, and are getting only 10 s. 6d. a week. How can
384
they live on that? Their labour market is the agricultural labour market, and they cannot get anything to do. It is extremely hard that they should get only 10 s. 6d. a week. I must say that I do think the scale of 12 s. 6d. when a leg is cut off at one place, 14 s. if cut off at another, and 16 s. if amputated at the hip is a dreadful statement to hear from the Government.
LORD SANDHURST: That was arranged some time ago. I do not make the statement for the first time.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, in all the industries of the country there are men who meet with particular accidents. These questions are gone into carefully in connection with the Employers' Liability Act, and it is astonishing how accurately the Judges value an arm, a leg, an eye, or anything else. The question of these pensions is most difficult and complicated, and I am sure His Majesty's Government will realise that it is the wish of the country to be generous to the men who have been fighting for us. At the same time I think that men with only one leg can get employment. I know many such men who are employed. I have a keeper who has lost a leg, and he is still the best keeper I ever had. If a man can do a certain amount of work it is always customary to take that into consideration when he receives a pension. If the Government consulted men who have had great experience in dealing with this question in connection with employers' liability insurance, and so on, they might get a good deal of useful information that would enable them to come to a correct decision on this point.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Thursday next.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.