CORN PRODUCTION BILL.

HL Deb 10 August 1917 vol 26 cc310-53

Adjourned debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

My Lords, I am sure that I shall have your concurrence when I say that the Bill which is now before us is one of a wholly exceptional character. It has been introduced because some measure of the kind had become a matter of vital necessity for the safety of the nation. I desire to say at once that I approach this question from one point of view, and from one point of view alone. It is this. Will this Bill be successful, or will it not, for the purpose for which it has been designed—namely, "to make the country self-supporting as regards its food supply "? I take those words from observations made on various occasion by the Prime Minister himself when he has spoken upon this subject. As far as I am concerned, it is on the answer to that question, and the form which the Bill will take when it has passed through Committee here, that my course will depend. My allegiance to truth compels me to say that I was never more disappointed in my life in a Bill in which I was interested than I am in this measure as it left the House of Commons.

That I have some reason for my disappointment I think I shall be able to show. To do that I must ask your Lordships to go back to February 23 last. On that day the Prime Minister made a speech which was afterwards described as a Charter—I rather think it was my noble friend Lord Selborne who used that expression, though I am not quite sure—a Charter given by the Prime Minister to the farmers of this country. I personally thought then, and I think now, that it was one of the most important, one of the most remarkable, and, I will add, one of the most courageous speeches—and here I entirely agree with what fell from Lord Lincolnshire last night—ever made by a man in his (the Prime Minister's) position. For, undoubtedly, in making that speech the Prime Minister took up a position which I think very few public men in this country would have had the courage to take. At all events, it showed me quite clearly that he at least had been quick to grasp the agricultural and national situation at the present moment, and all that it involved. He realised what the situation must be with regard to the food supply of this country in the future. He saw that, in the face of the submarine menace, in the face of this new, and, as I venture to call it, this infernal, invention—and inventions of this kind grow and increase, and, instead of diminishing, are sure to be made more perfect—we hold in this country a position absolutely and entirely different from any that we have ever held before, and that if we are to remain a great country among the nations of the world in the days to come we must begin by making ourselves, as far as that be possible—and it is possible—self-supporting as regards the food grown in this country.

The Prime Minister began by declaring that the ultimate success of the Allied cause must depend on our solving the question of tonnage sunk by submarines in the last two years and a half. He affirmed that we could cope with that peril, provided it was dealt with at once and by very drastic measures. And, more than that, he devised a scheme for that purpose, and his plan as he outlined it I never doubted myself was in its main features feasible and would have every chance of success, because it fulfilled the conditions which in my humble opinion were essential for that success. Now what were they? First, a fixed minimum price for corn, based, I believe, on the cost of production, to guarantee the grower against loss, and, what was specially important—and added, as he told us entirely because of the wishes of the farmers —no Wages Board till after the war. Secondly, the free run of the market to give the farmer the chance of a reasonable and encouraging price, to induce the greatest effort he had ever been called upon to make in his life, or that had been asked for in the life of preceding generations of farmers for a great number of years. This won the confidence and the hearty and loyal support of the cultivators, and in particular of those in the great corn-growing districts of the country, without which, believe me, any real success in the enormous change we are trying and are determined to make, if we can, is absolutely hopeless. All this the Prime Minister had promised.

But alas for the vanity of human pledges and human aspirations! The two pledges I have mentioned—(1) that there should be no Wages Board until after the war, and (2) the free run of the market—have both been unfulfilled. Wages Boards—and, remember this, Wages Boards with no limit whatever as to the amount of wages which they may fix—have been set up, and maximum prices for produce have already been fixed. These are two complete and entire departures. It is no use refraining from saying what is the actual truth. It is not desirable that I should mince matters, because I doubt very much whether the Government knew what the effect of their pledge was upon agriculturists throughout the country. When the Prime Minister spoke of the fixing of maximum prices, he led them to believe that, unless all the cereals in the country were commandeered for purposes of national safety, no maximum prices would be fixed. He went on to say this— And now I hope, that guarantee having been given, the farmers will put their backs into the work and do all they can to help us. This is exactly what they have done. You see it everywhere. They have enormously increased—by 350,000 acres, I think—the land cultivated as arable at the present moment.

Not only that, but members of this House and gentlemen all over the country connected with agriculture, including my humble self, went to meeting after meeting—I have been to a great many—urging the farmers to do all they could to support the plan of the Prime Minister. I explained fully what it was and said to them, "Now here is a man who has come forward and done what I thought hardly any other man in the country would do. It is your business to back him up for all you are worth." And they have done this. But what is the position in which the Government have placed me and all of us who took the same line, as well as the farmers? Every day I get communications and appeals. The farmers say that the Bill is so utterly changed that they do not want to have it at all, and that they will be better off without it. And if I tell your Lordships the truth to-night, I am perfectly certain in my own mind that the agricultural interest would be far better without the Bill than with it. Consequently all the good done and the pleasure with which throughout the whole agricultural community the Prime Minister's speech was received is gone.

Think of the change which this Bill has made in the position of farmers. First of all, the Prime Minister said there should be no Wages Boards until after the war. Then immediately afterwards, turning to Mr. Balfour, he said— My right hon. friend reminds me that it is not merely during the war that this guarantee of a minimum wage will be given, but during the period when there will be a guarantee of prices. Taking that in connection with what had been said previously on the subject, it is obvious that the intention was that the minimum price of the one should be the complement of the minimum price of the other; and that was the sense of it which was universally understood all over the country, and certainly it was so understood by me.

What a change this is suddenly to flash upon the agricultural world. They have been telling you from the first what they wanted to know. They wanted to know exactly the position in which they were placed, and what they had to face. Now what are they to think? They were counting on a minimum wage of 25s. on the one hand, and a fixed minimum price of corn on the other, which were supposed to balance each other. But the other day in the House of Commons I noticed that 101 Members voted to increase the minimum wage in the Bill to 30s. It is quite true they were defeated. But what is going to happen when the Wages Boards are created? If 100 Members voted for an increased wage in the House of Commons, is it not absolutely certain that some Wages Board or another will immediately fix an increased wage to at least that extent? If it is done in one county, the neighbouring county of course, will want it too, and so it will spread all over the country. What then becomes of the farmer's understanding on this subject, and what becomes of the security of the guarantee against loss, which it was expressly said it was intended to give him, if all of a sudden the minimum rate of wages is to be considerably increased, not by the Government, but by the Wages Boards which the Government have set up? I say that this is a very serious consideration, and one which appears to me to have been almost entirely lost sight of in the proceedings which have been taken with regard to this Bill.

The basis of the Bill originally was production. Such a basis would encourage good farming, and it is on good farming that you have to depend for increased production. But you put your basis now upon acreage. What is the effect of that? A basis upon acreage does exactly the opposite. It is a premium on bad farming, and is most injurious in the way in which it will diminish what the good farmer would have got under the Bill as it was originally proposed. I will not occupy any length of time upon this, because I intend to move an Amendment in Committee on the point. I shall then deal with it fully, and I believe that I shall state a case which will be conclusive against the change. But in regard to the way in which it will affect the good farmer, let me say this. The President of the Board of Agriculture was courteous enough to send me a paper that he had drawn up on this subject, showing how the change would work. I have examined it carefully, and I take the instance that I am going to give your Lordships as the result of that paper. He took the harvest of 1919 as an example. I will do the same, and take the guaranteed prices of that year. I want to make my point as shortly as I can, so I will not go into the particulars. On a given acreage, a farmer growing to the acre five quarters of wheat—and those are the men you want to encourage above all others—would receive, on the production basis, £786, whereas he would get only £471 under the acreage scheme of the President of the Board of Agriculture. Do you think that is the way to encourage increased production? In my humble opinion it is the most left-handed way of encouraging production that I ever heard of. What is the sole answer that has been given so far? That the basis proposed in the Bill will make administration so very much easier. In other words, we are to sacrifice increased production, which is our main and principal object, in order to save the Board of Agriculture trouble. In my opinion, all these ideas regarding difficulties of administration are purely imaginary. There is an old custom, or was, called the Lincolnshire custom. I suppose I am one of the few people who remember it; but in every change of tenancy, in every question of that kind, there never was the smallest difficulty in ascertaining all the particulars which it is thought so impossible to obtain to-day. They had all to be gone into whenever there was a change of tenancy. And so well did that old and simple custom work—this may be news to many here—that every Agricultural Holdings Act that was ever passed was founded upon that custom. So well, indeed, did it work that there was practically no dispute, and there is no case on record where it was necessary for the question to be taken into Court. Therefore these ideas about difficulties of administration are, in my opinion, all moonshine. I will not dwell more upon that, for, as I say, I shall move an Amendment upon it in Committee. I hope then to prove to demonstration, and out of the mouths of some people who are now its keen supporters, that the basis proposed in the Bill is entirely opposed to increased production.

I notice some discrepancy between the statements of the Prime Minister and those of the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Milner) with regard to the completion of that great scheme for making ourselves self-sustaining in this country, which was to be done by the ploughing up and the proper cultivation of an extra 3,000,000 acres of land. The Prime Minister, on April 28, at the Guildhall in London, made a statement which was most encouraging to everybody who is endeavouring to follow this question. He said— Therefore we are taking steps now for the harvest of 1918, and not a minute too soon. We have already got our plans. If those plans are carried out, there will be 3,000,000 fresh acres of land under cultivation, and we tan guarantee that, without a ton of foodstuffs from abroad, no one will starve. This statement was received with "loud and prolonged cheers." I pass from this to a speech made by Lord Milner on May 23. The noble Viscount was just as determined as he had ever been before. What he said was this— For my own part, I regard the matter as an absolutely vital one. I should not be willing to share the responsibility of the future unless a very great increase in the home production of food were to be effected. I could not myself face going on without it.

VISCOUNT MILNER

Hear, hear.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Then matters went on, and we subsequently had a debate on the question of the additional 3,000,000 acres. I moved a Resolution on that occasion which was perfectly compatible with my view that we ought to go on with the 3,000,000 acres in order to make ourselves self-supporting. But I laid this down, that it would be quite wrong to go on with it unless you were certain of being able to get the labour. Although I was one of those who were perfectly ready to acknowledge—and I acknowledge again now—the work which my noble friend did on behalf of the agricultural interest in connection with the getting of labour, there remains the fact that undoubtedly he has never been able to get that labour in the amount which is necessary for this particular purpose. On the occasion of the debate on my Resolution—June 27—the noble Viscount's opinion and views were very different indeed from those of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall. Lord Milner then said, referring to the figures of 3,000,000 acres— I think it always was an ideal figure—something to be worked up to, but not something which anybody supposed would be attained in full, though no doubt it would be very advantageous if it could be achieved. Yes! But what did the Prime Minister say on February 23, in one of his most impassioned passages, dealing with this. He said, "It must be done immediately." But it has never been done yet.

I really do not know how to reconcile these conflicting opinions and statements. Is it seriously intended to make the effort to secure that this country shall be self-supporting with regard to food? If the Government are going to abandon the scheme, either wholly or partly, for making the country self-supporting, I can only say that I am not going to do so, as far as I am concerned, and they will not have me for a supporter, although I can honestly say that since the Prime Minister made his speech on February 23, and until I saw for the first time the Bill which was to give effect to his policy, I have done my best in every possible way to support him and to get him the support of the agricultural community throughout the country. But the changes which have been made in the Bill appear to me absolutely to get rid of the conditions which I laid down as essential for the success of any measure introduced into Parliament with this object.

What I have said this evening is exactly what I think upon this subject, and I have said it because I feel it with the greatest and the utmost sincerity. There is no man who desires more than I do to see a complete change in the agricultural conditions of this country and a return to the bettor conditions in which agriculture used to be years ago, when we were not hampered by what I have always thought to be the mistaken policy of Free Trade so far as it was applied to agriculture, and a return to the times, not so very long ago now, some sixty or seventy years, when we fed with our own wheat 24,000,000 people in this country—90 per cent. of the whole of the then population. Agriculture has made advances in every respect since. If that was possible then, of course it is possible now; and if you take on the top of the wheat that was grown then what is now grown, with barley and oats in addition, we should certainly be absolutely safe from any fear of starvation. But we shall not accomplish that object with this Bill in its present form. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will favourably consider such Amendments as may seek to place the Bill in a better condition; and if that be done, and if those Amendments are accepted and embodied in the Bill, then I shall not be without hope that even yet this Bill may be successful in accomplishing the purpose for which it was framed, and which all parties in the country desire to see carried out.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, I rise to make a few remarks upon this Bill, reserving, of course, full right at a later stage to suggest such Amendments as may seem likely to improve its character. In the first instance, I do not suppose that any noble Lord will deny the absolute necessity of doing everything that is possible to increase the production of corn. In fact, the title of this measure is the Corn Production Bill. I think also that every member of this House agrees that everything possible should be done to improve the condition of the agricultural labourer.

With regard to Part I of the Bill, to which my noble friend Lord Chaplin has expressed his intention of proposing an Amendment, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Duke to the enormous expense which appears likely to be entailed in certifying that the claimant to the benefits of the Bill has established his case. There will be, it seems to me, a huge army of surveyors going about the country, first of all satisfying themselves as to whether the wheat or oats have been so produced; secondly, in the case where wheat and oats are intermixed with any other crop, certifying the amount payable in respect of each portion of those crops; and, thirdly, deciding whether the land has or has not been negligently cultivated. Are we going to have all over the country another huge army of land surveyors? I should like to be satisfied on that point. If that is not going to be so, I shall be only too glad. But if it is going to be so, and if every field of oats and of wheat and every patch of oats and wheat in mixed cultivation is to be examined by incompetent surveyors, all I can say is that it will entail to the country a very large expense which I venture to say had infinitely better be incurred in producing corn. What we want is corn, not surveyors. Before we vote on the Second Reading of this Bill, I think we ought to be satisfied as to what the expenses are likely to be which will be incurred under the heads of surveying and certifying. The three heads to which I refer are these. First, whether the com has been produced; secondly, the separate surveying of crops in cases of mixed production; and, thirdly, deciding whether or not the land has been negligently farmed. If we could have given to us an estimate of this cost within, say, a few hundred thousand pounds, it would be a helpful guide.

The noble Duke alluded to the later parts of this Bill as a labyrinth. I am going to take him as my guide through this labyrinth. In Part I of the Bill we are playing about in the gardens, as at a school treat. We are now in the gardens. To change the metaphor, in Part I of the Bill there is all the jam. The jam is in the minimum prices which are held out as an inducement to agriculturists to grow more corn. I want to examine for a moment the value of the jam—we shall come to the powder later on. The noble Duke said that these provisions all hung together; everything was beautifully coordinated—no powder, no jam; no jam. no powder. I need not read to your Lordships what the minimum prices are. But does any one really think that these prices will be reached? The wheat price put down for 1917 is 60s. per quarter. I believe the market price to-day is something like 88s. Lord Rhondda's price is 72s. So that we have three prices—the market price, Lord Rhondda's price, and the minimum price. Therefore when I see noble and right hon. politicians claiming on the strength of this Bill the enormous extra acreage that will be under cultivation this year, I think they are claiming that which they have no right to claim.

Now I come to the other years mentioned in the Bill. Does anyone really think that there is here any jam at all? Does anybody really believe that prices are likely to come down to the minimum prices mentioned in the Bill? I can give your Lordships a great many reasons why such a thing is impossible. It might conceivably be possible if there were an enormous contraction of the currency. But I do not wish to go into that question. Of course, every country when it goes to war fights on paper. No nation would think of fighting on gold and silver. Besides those killed every week according to Mr. Hilaire Belloc, there are at least 50,000,000 men in arms in Europe at the present time. I do not say that they all come from agriculture, but it is obvious that a large number of them have come from that source—to which, alas! a great many will never return. In this £50,000,000 I am not counting neutral countries, many of whom have a large proportion of their population standing to arms as well. The same thing obtains practically all over the world. With the bad cultivation necessitated by the calling up of this enormous mass of men, is it likely that the diminution in the production of cereals, which has happened not only since the beginning of the war but which showed itself before the war, will be improved to such an extent as to make up for the ravages of the war and bring about this fall in prices by the year 1922? I think I am in accord with my noble guide (the Duke of Marlborough) on this point. He said it was extremely unlikely that these prices would be reached. Then I ask, Where is the jam? It has gone. There is no inducement under this Bill, except the moral one. But the farmer has to pay later on a great deal for the provisions in Part I; and the price to be paid is nothing less than the upsetting of the whole of the agricultural system of this country, and plunging into unknown depths.

I will not follow the noble Duke into what he very justly, and I think with some pride, called the labyrinth of Part II—the agricultural workman's minimum wage. I agree with my noble friend that his was a very good description of it, and he will no doubt be able before the Bill gets through Committee to guide us skilfully through the maze. What I blame him for is hurrying the initial footsteps. He did not point out to us the most important constructional features of this labyrinth, to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. It should be remarked that the Board of Agriculture are the absolute authority, the real absolute power, from end to end in the matter of the Wages Board in London and the local committees set up to settle wages. This is an enormous power for any public Department to have uncontrolled. First, they can add as many members to the Wages Board in London or to the District Wages Boards all over the country as they choose. They can also appoint the chairman and the secretary of each of these bodies. Further, they have power to make regulations of any kind and to govern these bodies as they like. The whole thing with regard to wages is absolutely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. I hope that, considering how complicated and difficult this question is, some Amendment will be introduced and pressed with regard to the Wages Board and the various district wages authorities.

Another point in this connection. Are the Wages Boards which are to be set up all over the country to be paid? Is the chairman to be paid? Is the secretary to be paid? Are the Labour representatives on it to be paid? I do not know how many hundreds or thousands of these bodies there are going to be, but if the members are all to be paid, and there is added to this expense the cost of the surveyors mentioned in Part I of the Bill—and we have already had some experience of surveyors in this country—you will have an enormous bureaucratic body set up absolutely under the thumb of one Department, with no appeal of any sort or kind. In addition to the powers conferred upon that body, we shall incur an enormous expenditure. That is one item in regard to Part II to which the noble Duke did not draw our attention in any special manner. I object to this partly on the ground of expense. I think we ought to have some idea, before agreeing to the Second Reading of this Bill, what the cost will be.

When you are regulating wages of any kind all over the country, you are faced with this sort of thing. I do not suppose any member of this House has not received letters from people engaged in other industries saying that, because the despised labourer is to receive a minimum wage of 25s. a week, therefore these others, whether they are engineers or whatever they are, should have an increase in their wages in proportion. That is an aspect which certainly will have to be considered. With regard to the question of wages, I am sorry Lord Harris is absent. I am also sorry that I cannot follow him in the most interesting topic with which he started his speech yesterday. It was most refreshing to me to hear of index numbers and the theory oil money—a subject, on which I spent a great many years some time ago. I agree with the noble Lord that it is difficult to fix a monetary wage which will not vary. The thing is impossible. Wages bear relation to what the industry is paying at the time. I am very far from saying that, under present conditions and the present crisis, 25s. cannot very well be afforded by the farmer. As a matter of fact, I think it can. But I hope that Clause 4 of Part II will be made a great deal clearer than it is at present.

May I now be allowed to say a word on the permit question? I think the clause dealing with that is a most objectionable one. I was talking to a very able farmer last, night, who said he really did not know what he could do under this clause. He put this sort of thing to me. Supposing a harvester comes along the road and wants a day's work. You have to say to him "Where is your permit? "You would employ such a man only as a part-time labourer and out of charity. He would not be worth more than 15s. a week at the outside. But this man might turn out to be an able-bodied labourer, and then he might prosecute you for not paying him the minimum wage. That is the worst of it. I think some better means might be found for enforcing this minimum wage than a criminal prosecution. It ought to be done by civil process. What happens? A man who is accused of having given to an able-bodied man a wage under the minimum wage when he thought the man was not an able-bodied man is liable to a criminal prosecution. He is liable on summary conviction to certain penalties. My point is that if a man employs a casual labourer out of charity, that labourer may make himself out to be an able-bodied man, and then if the employer has not given him 25s. a week the employer is liable to a criminal prosecution. Nobody knows whether these Boards who are to issue permits for men to work at less than the minimum wage will sit often or not. They may sit only once a month, and a man cannot wait a month for a permit. I see in my mind's eye a lot of poor old men applying for certificates of incompetence. That is what they will be compelled to do. They will have to come along the road to this authority and beg for a certificate of mental deficiency or incompetence, and if they do not get that certificate they cannot be employed. If anybody employs an able-bodied man and pays him less than the minimum wage, he is liable on summary conviction not only to a fine of £20, but £1 a day as well. I hope that this matter will be dealt with in Committee, and that the noble Duke will get the authorities to look into it.

I come now to Part III, which refers to landlords. They are a body of men who are always being praised and always being kicked. People say that the landlords keep the farms going and keep agriculture going, but, when they have said this, they then do all they can to ruin the landlords. The position of the landlord is this. He is not supposed to get any benefit out of the Bill. Nobody has ever given any benefit to a landlord. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that he is in a very unpleasant position at the present time. First of all, his rents in a great many cases were fixed in the old days on the basis of about 60s. a quarter. They were then reduced in order to meet the necessities of the tenant farmers. To keep the land going, large sums of money were spent on farm buildings; at all events, in this country agriculture was kept going by the landlords. What is his outlook? First of all he will have to pay increased mortgage interest. Many mortgagees have given notice of their intention to increase the rate of interest; and very often that increased rate of mortgage interest will take away the margin that existed between the expenses of the estate and what the landlord received. Then tithes are increased. The farmer gets the benefit of the increased cost of the corn, but the landlord has to pay the increased tithe. There is another serious item. The landlord, who gets none of the benefits, has an enormous increase of expenditure to bear in connection with repairs. I will give your Lordships one instance. The other day I wanted some iron fencing. Some years ago I could get it for 1s. 9d. fixed. Now I am asked 5s. 8d. delivered at the station. I do not say that this is an absolutely accurate guide as to the rise of expenditure, but it is a symptom of it.

I think landlords are entitled to a good deal of sympathy, which no doubt they will get. At the same time, by Part IV—to which I am now coming—they will probably be dispossessed of their estates. That Part deals with the power to enforce proper cultivation. I think this is the most monstrous proposal I have seen in any Bill that has ever been introduced into Parliament. What does Clause 9 say? The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, where they are of opinion in any case that the land is "not being cultivated in such a manner as the Board think best in the interests of the country," may serve a notice, etc. Nobody can possibly know what the Board may think is in the interests of the country, and there is no appeal against their opinion. They may be quite wrong, and you may take all the proceedings you can; but the defence of the Board will be, "We thought that what we did was best in the interests of the country." I have had some experience of Boards. When I was Mayor of Maidenhead the Local Government Board had a particular fad in connection with some scheme to deal with effluent, and so on. And where they had the pull of us was in this. They could not turn us out, like, the Board of Agriculture can a landlord under this Bill, but they said, "We shall not sanction your proposal." Therefore we had to adopt their scheme although it was a bad one. The consequence has been that the unfortunate town has had to go on paying rates on that scheme ever since.

This is supposed to be an emergency Bill to increase the production of corn. A comic thing about Part IV is that it is not to be exerciseable so long as the powers exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country under the Defence of the Realm Regulations remain in force. Why is there so much hurry? This provision revolutionises all matters in, connection with the land in this country; yet it is not to be exerciseable while a certain other Regulation is in force. The whole idea of this is to give absolutely unfettered power to a Board which in other respects also has taken very great care to have the whole power in its hands without anybody having the right to the smallest objection. It is practically a provision to hand over to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries the land of England where they are of opinion that it is not being cultivated in such a manner as the Board think best in the interests of the country—and under a Part of the Bill which is not going to be enforced at once, but which is to stand over for some indefinite time.

We have no guide as to what the expenditure under this Bill will be. If the Board of Agriculture would only say that they would not spend more than £1,000,000, or more than £2,000,000, or more than £3,000,000, or more than £4,000,000 a year, we should at any rate have some idea as to what expense, is likely to be incurred. I hate these bureaucratic powers, and I trust that before the Bill leaves this House we shall insert, where it should be inserted, a right of appeal to the law of the land, which after all, is the right of every free-born English citizen. We ought not to be placed under the heel of a Board, however well intentioned, and however eminent. Your Lordships will have gathered that I am not wholly in favour of this Bill. At the same time, I should be very sorry for any noble Lord to go away with the impression that I am not as anxious as any one to produce as much corn as possible and to give the labourer on the land a fair wage.

VISCOUNT MILNER

My Lords, I think it may be the wish of the House that at this stage some one should intervene on behalf of the, Government. We have had a number of weighty and important speeches, on the whole favourable and friendly speeches as far as the debate yesterday was concerned, and speeches perhaps a little more critical in tone—though certainly redeemed in the remarks of my noble friend opposite by their amusing character—in the debate to-night. It is only right that we should review the situation by the light of the various arguments that have been addressed to us. At the same time I shall endeavour to compress my remarks within the narrowest compass possible, consistent with respect to the speakers who have preceded me, because we are anxious to take the Second Reading tonight, and I know there are a number of other noble Lords still desirous of speaking who have every right to address the House in view of the special knowledge and experience which they can bring to bear on the subject.

I do not think your Lordships will wish me to dwell at any length, either upon the causes which have led to the introduction of this Bill, or the principles which underlie it. The causes are well enough known; the principles, whether they are approved or not, are also fairly understood. I think the best way I can employ the limited time at my disposal is in dealing with one or two of the main points which have been raised in the course of the discussion, leaving, of course, a great many matters of a more detailed nature to be dealt with in the course of the discussions in Committee. First of all I would like to say a word or two with regard to some remarks from the noble Viscount opposite that were critical of the declarations made, not so much with regard to this Bill as with regard to the agricultural policy generally, of which it is an essential part, by the Prime Minister and by myself. The Prime Minister is very well able to take care of himself. As far as I am concerned, I listened with attention to the quotations from my speeches which the noble Viscount did me the honour to read, and I cannot for the life of me see any inconsistency in the statements which I have made.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I was not calling into question your consistency. I was referring to the discrepancy between your statements and those of the Prime Minister.

VISCOUNT MILNER

I do not admit even that. When the noble Viscount emphasises the word "immediately," used by the Prime Minister, he surely does not contend that any human being would have understood the Prime Minister to mean that the 3,000,000 additional acres would somehow or other be mysteriously ploughed up directly after he had made his speech.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

That was in February.

VISCOUNT MILNER

Yes. But I think that so far from the progress that has been made being anything to be laughed at, it is a very remarkable progress. It is obvious that for a great change of this kind a certain amount of time is required. It is also certain that we started the campaign very late in the day indeed—that was not our fault—and under most unfavourable circumstances. But what is the result? We have in the United Kingdom 1,000,000 extra acres under arable to-day. It is true that the greater part of it is in Ireland. But even in this country the addition of upwards of 300,000 acres already is surely a very considerable achievement. And while I have never committed myself to the assertion that we should achieve in one year the total amount which we hope ultimately to achieve, I am certainly far from despairing that we shall get very near it indeed in the course of the present twelvemonth, and I feel very little doubt that we shall attain it altogether in the course of the next year or two, if the war continues, I hope we may do it even if the war does not continue.

Passing from that point to some of the details of the Bill which have been principally called in question, I should like, in the first instance, to say a word with regard to the method by which the Bill proposes that the benefit of the guaranteed minimum price should be given to the farmer. I was grateful for the admission made last night by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that, whatever method had been adopted, he—or I may add any other equally competent expert—would have been able to knock a number of holes in it. Personally I have always been in favour of the plan which was embodied in this Bill as it first appeared in the House of Commons. Owing to the criticisms directed against that method in the House of Commons, an important change has been made. Now that I see the Bill in its latest form, I think there is a great deal to be said for it. However, it will be much more convenient to carry on that controversy on the Amendment which the noble Viscount (Lord Chaplin) tells us he proposes to move in Committee. I will only make one remark about it to-night. The noble Viscount says that the method now contained in the Bill has been justified only on the ground of simplicity of administration. Simplicity of administration, and consequent cheapness of administration, is an important point, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has repeatedly impressed upon us. Therefore that is not a matter to be altogether brushed aside. But whether it has been defended on that ground alone or not, it is certainly not the only ground on which it can be defended. To my mind, the strongest argument which can be adduced in favour of the method now adopted, and I think it was the argument which weighed with the other House and with my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, who ultimately adopted it—is that it is the fairest method as between different kinds of farmers. If you are going to give the benefit of the guaranteed minimum price only for corn actually produced and sold, it is a disadvantage to the small man and to the farmer who in the ordinary course of his business consumes a considerable proportion of his produce himself.

I quite recognise the force of the objection to the method proposed—namely, that it may encourage careless cultivation. But the answer to that is, I think, twofold. In the first place, the farmer's constant and greatest interest is always the quantity and quality of his crop. The minimum price is only an insurance. It is quite possible, as the noble Lord who spoke last pointed out, that it may never be operative. For the next year or two the price will certainly be higher than the guaranteed price, and the farmer's interest will lie entirely in the quantity and quality of the corn he raises, and not at all in the number of acres from which he raises it. The determination of the guaranteed minimum price for the number of acres from which the crop is raised will be of importance only in case the farmer has to fall back on the guarantee. But then there is another thing to be considered, and that is that against the mere careless scratching of the land, which I think is much less to be feared than some noble Lords seem to suggest, there is a protection in proviso (b) of Clause l, which says— If it appears to the Board that any such land has been negligently cultivated, the Board may either withhold altogether the payments to which the occupier would otherwise have been entitled or may diminish the amount of those payments to such extent as the Board think proper to meet the circumstances of the case. I turn to another point which has attracted a great deal of criticism in the course of this debate, and that is the provision for minimum rates of wages to be fixed by a Wages Board, and especially the prescription of a definite minimum of 25s. a week, below which the wages of every able-bodied labourer are not to be allowed to fall. Here we are exposed to a cross fire. Lord Harris, whom I am sorry not to see in his place to-night but whose forcible speech was listened to, I think, with much approval by the House yesterday, seemed to be strongly in favour of a Wages Board and of the principles laid down in the Bill for the guidance of the Wages Board in fixing the minimum rates, but he altogether disapproved of putting any definite figure, such as 25s., as a minimum into the Bill. The noble Viscount opposite, however, apparently disapproves entirely of a Wages Board, but he is all for the minimum figure. On one side we are attacked for having Wages Boards at all; on the other the Wages Board is approved of but not the minimum figure. I venture to think that both criticisms are wrong, and that the plan of the Bill is the right plan—namely, leaving to the discretion of a Wages Board, with district committees throughout the country, the determination of minimum rates of wages, taking count of the differing circumstances of each district, as well as, of course, the different nature of the employments for which those rates are fixed, but at the same time fixing a definite minimum below which the wages of an able-bodied agricultural labourer shall not fall.

The great point made by Lord Harris was that it was impossible to provide in terms of money for that which it is undoubtedly our object to secure—namely, a reasonable living wage for every agricultural labourer. I think the general sense of the House is in favour of securing that. But he argued—and the argument is, of course, unanswerable—that the real value of 25s., or any other number of shillings, a week, must depend upon the price of the more staple articles of consumption which the labourer buys, and of which a convenient test is afforded by the index figure to which he referred. According as those prices were very high or very low, the wage, he argued—any particular wage—might be much too large or much too little. That seems to me to be a very strong, and, in fact, a conclusive, argument for having a Wages Board which is able to vary the minimum rates of wages from time to time, having regard to those varying prices and to all the other relevant conditions of the case. But is this an argument against fixing a minimum below which, during the limited period, the rate of wages should not fall? I think not. Your Lordships must bear in mind that I am referring now to the great fluctuation in the real value of any given sum of money. I say, Is that an argument against fixing a definite minimum in terms of money during a given period? It could be that only if it could be contended that during that period there was a likelihood of such a general and large fall of prices as would make that minimum figure an unreasonably high one. I wish there were the least chance of anything of the kind. I think, for my own part, it is obvious that during the five years, or the little more than five years, for which this Bill, if it becomes an Act, is to be in force, there is very little likelihood of anything like a return to what were normal prices before the war. I know that the noble Lord who spoke last will contest my view in that respect. Even before the war, as Lord Harris pointed out, there was for a number of years a steady tendency to a rise in prices. That tendency has been enormously aggravated by the circumstances of the war, and it is still in progress. I believe myself that the efforts now being made by the Government will have the effect of checking that; but the best we can hope for, with all our efforts, is to keep prices where they are. I think there is very little chance of any considerable fall during the war, or for several years after the close of it. For my own part, I believe that the labourer would be safe, enough with the Wages Boards fixing minimum rates according to the circumstances and having regard to the prices prevalent at any particular time. But the point is this. Just as, in the case of the farmer, we are fixing guaranteed minimum prices for his produce—although we may doubt, as some of us do, whether that guaranteed minimum price is necessary—in order to give confidence to the farmer, so, I think, the same argument obtains for securing likewise peace of mind to the labourer.

There is one other consideration which I should like to put before your Lordships in defence of the definite minimum wage of 25s., which has been so strongly attacked. I think we should have some consideration for the case of the soldier returning to this country, whom we want to attract to the land. We certainly want to get back those who have been on the land already, and we want to increase their number. I do not think, in the case of the men returning from the war and considering what employment they would go into, that it is sufficient to say, in order to induce them to take up agriculture, that there were to be Wages Boards which in a certain period of time—it might take a considerable time—were going to fix reasonable wages for agricultural work. I think it will be a much greater inducement to them to know that, whatever the Wages Boards may settle, there is a definite figure below which their remuneration will not fall; and I hope that this, among other reasons which I have, perhaps, at too great length given to your Lordships, may weigh in favour of the course which has been criticised, of providing not only that there should be Wages Boards to settle minimum rates from time to time, but that there should be the additional security to the labourer that those minimum rates should never be fixed at a lower figure than 25s. a week for the full time work of an able-bodied man.

As to the principle of fixing minimum wages at all by means of a Wages Board, I know that theoretically any number of arguments may be adduced against it. They were adduced—the same arguments as we have heard to-day—over and over again when the first experiment of a minimum wage was made in this country by the Trades Boards Act of 1909. We have now had seven or eight years experience of that Act. I think there are few people in this country who would deny that it has done a very great deal of good, and I am sure that nobody would ask for it to be repealed. We hear arguments of precisely the same nature to-day. We have heard some this afternoon with reference to the new proposal—the proposal of an Agricultural Wages Board. They sound very alarming when they are put, but in practice the thing has worked out well in analogous cases, and I believe myself—in fact, I am firmly convinced—that it will work well here also. Of course, it is a difficult thing to administer, and there will be hitches. But I think I may reassure the noble Lord who has just spoken on the subject of the expense. I have not inquired of the Board of Agriculture, but I have no doubt that with regard to remuneration the procedure laid down under the Trades Boards Act will be followed. There are no salaries there for the members of those Boards, but remuneration only for loss of time. I do not know exactly what the cost of those Boards is, but I can assure the noble Lord that it is not anything like a formidable figure; and I do not believe, either as regards the expenses of the district committees or as regards the determination of the number of acres which will be under the crops entitling the farmer to the guarantee, that we need fear being confronted with the expenditure which the noble Lord contemplates. I do not myself see that there is any necessity for that horde of inspectors to which the noble Lord referred, and for which I think we should have as little liking as he has. He will bear in mind that under the Act Agricultural Returns are made compulsory, and that it is a penal offence to make false Returns. The Agricultural Returns will furnish the basis of the information which the Board of Agriculture will require in order to make those payments to the farmers to which they may become entitled under the provisions of Part I of this Bill.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Somebody has to decide whether or not the land has been negligently cultivated.

VISCOUNT MILNER

Yes, that is so.

LORD DESBOROUGH

How many district committees are there likely to be?

VISCOUNT MILNER

I cannot tell the noble Lord, but I will find out. I do not suppose anybody can say exactly at present. I will endeavour to get further information for the noble Lord upon that point when we come to the Committee stage.

There is one other point of such broad importance that I think I ought to make reference to it on this occasion, though, of course, we shall have to discuss it very much more fully when we come to the Committee stage—namely, the power that Part IV of the Bill gives to enforce proper cultivation. When we introduced this Bill into Parliament, and especially when it reached this House, I do not think any member of the Government was under any delusion as to the amount of criticism which this portion of the Bill would encounter. I do not complain of those criticisms—they were only what we might reasonably have, expected—and I do not say for a moment that all the provisions of this Part of the Bill are perfect, or that there may not be Amendments suggested on this subject which the Government would be bound most carefully to consider. Certainly it Amendments can be suggested which, without interfering with the main object that the Bill contemplates, will provide further securities against the abuse of these powers, they ought to be given the most careful consideration. But I think it right to say that, in our view, the conferring of this power in some shape or form upon the Government—and, of course, there is only one Department which could properly exercise it, the Board of Agriculture—is a vital principle of the Bill. It is just as essential to the Bill, as it seems to me as the guarantee of the minimum price to the farmer. It is the other side of the bargain; it is the State's quid pro quo for the very heavy potential liabilities which it undertakes under Part I.

What, after all, is the reason for having this Bill at all? The reason is that the necessities of the situation in which we find ourselves require that the land of the country should be cultivated in a particular way. As this is a vital necessity, it is right that the State, should have the power to enforce that the land should be cultivated. Of course, where that is done, where under direction by a Government. Department land is cultivated in some manner different from that in which it might be cultivated if private interest alone were to determine the form of its cultivation, it is right that, if private interests are injured in any way owing to that national necessity, the private individual who suffers should be compensated. The Bill provides, and provides in the most ample manner, for compensation in the case in which either the landlord or the tenant suffers from the interference of the Board of Agriculture with his existing method of cultivation.

I should like to call your Lordships' attention to subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 9, which deal with this point. Some of the arguments that have been addressed to your Lordships seemed to suggest that it would be possible for the Board of Agriculture to enforce an unsuitable treatment of a farm. It is assumed by this class of argument that the Board of Agriculture will act unreasonably, that they might insist on that particular unsuitable treatment of the farm, and that, if the occupier did not agree to it, they might turn him out and put somebody else in, and that at the end of a certain period the Board might hand back the land, permanently damaged or depreciated, to the owner, and he would have to make the best of it. But the Bill provides very clearly that this cannot be done without the owner being compensated, and compensated by an impartial tribunal. The words in subsection (7) are— Any person who is interested in any land in respect of which any notice is served or order made under this section or of which possession is taken under this section and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall, if he makes a claim for the purpose within such time, not being less than one year, after the exercise of the powers as may be prescribed by the Board be entitled to be paid by the Board such amount as represents the loss. Moreover the amount is to be determined by an arbitrator appointed under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, varied in such a way as to secure that the arbitrator shall be a really impartial person. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act an arbitrator, if not appointed by agreement, is appointed by the Board of Agriculture. Clearly the Board of Agriculture must be one of the parties in the case we are here discussing. Therefore this Bill substitutes for the Board of Agriculture the President of the Surveyors' Institute; and the Surveyors' Institute, whatever opinion may be held of it, is not a body which is commonly regarded as being hostile to the landed interest.

LORD DESBOROUGH

What happens to the payment of interest on mortgages or family charges, or of rates or tithes? If the person concerned is not going to get paid for a year, how does he make these payments?

VISCOUNT MILNER

That is a fair point to which I am willing to give consideration. I am glad of the noble Lord's interruption, because it enables me to refer to another matter which I had almost forgotten, and on which he laid particular stress—I mean the rent clause. He seemed to be of opinion that, whatever additional charges were thrown upon a landlord while the Bill was in force, and however well justified an increase in rent might be owing to the fact of the increased price of agricultural produce, the landlord was deprived by the Bill of his power of making a reasonable increase in his rent.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I think the noble Viscount has misunderstood me. I did not say that he was deprived of any power. I said there was nothing in the Bill which provided for any of the contingencies which have arisen.

VISCOUNT MILNER

He has it in his own power, just as much after the Bill has become law as before, to increase his rent. But I will not pursue that point, as I see that the noble Lord quite appreciates the bearing of the Bill in that respect. The powers—drastic powers, as I fully admit—which have been put into the Bill are, to my mind, an absolutely essential part of it. I think the security against an unreasonable use of those powers is manifold. In the first place, there is what I may call the personal security of the well-known character of the people who will have to administer the Bill. I know that noble Lords may say, "That is all very well. We at present have a sympathetic and intelligent President of the Board of Agriculture. But he may be changed, and we may have somebody who is hostile to the agricultural interest put in his place." Yes. But all these powers are going to be exercised, it is true, by a Government official, but not, by a Prussian bureaucrat. They are going to be exercised by a British Government official who is exposed all the time to the criticism of Parliament and to the constant criticism and supervision of the Press. You may, of course, assume that the powers will be exercised in an absolutely unreasonable and unconstitutional manner. Every Act of Parliament which gives powers to a Government can always be criticised from that point of view. But even if you put aside entirely what I call the element of the personal security, you still have the fact that the Board of Agriculture cannot go interfering recklessly with the cultivation of land all over the country without exposing itself to the penalty of paving the price of such interference.

For my own part I think it is absolutely unreasonable to suppose that the Board, entrusted as it will be with the enormously difficult and complicated task of carrying out the provisions of this Bill, is going want only to interfere with the operations either of landlords or of tenants. As a matter of fact, the powers that are given to it under the Bill are great powers, but they are less than those which it actually exercises at the present moment under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Undoubtedly, mistakes have been made in some instances by the Board of Agriculture and by the agricultural executive committees, but I do not think that any man will contend on the whole that those drastic powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations are being exercised at present in an unreasonable or in an excessively interfering manner. But though that is not being done, the effect of the existence of these powers has been very marked in the improvement of agricultural methods in many parts of the country. For one case in which the compulsory powers vested in the Board now by the. Defence of the Realm Regulations are exercised, I venture to say there are twenty cases in which they are operative. I submit that the land is likely to be put to better use than it has been in the recent past owing to the fact that these powers exist. We must rely in the main on these personal and moral considerations and influences to ensure the reasonable use of the certainly wide but necessary power which the Bill provides.

I wish it were possible to adopt what I think was the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that the right of the Board of Agriculture to prescribe the form which the cultivation of any particular land should take should be confined to cases of flagrant misuse of the land. It would be more satisfactory if it could be so confined, but it would not really secure the object which we have in view. I have no doubt that the majority of cases in which the Board of Agriculture will interfere in the future, as certainly is true of the cases in which it has interfered in the past, will be where land is being really badly cultivated. That is the first direction which its efforts ought to take. But we have to recognise that there may be land, and a good deal of it, which is being reasonably well cultivated from the point of view of private interest, but, which, in order to get the increased production of corn which is our main object, it is necessary to cultivate differently; and unless the power exists to require such changes in the method of cultivation, it is impossible to hope that the agricultural programme which we have in view, and which in the main is approved by the sense of this House, can be carried out to anything like the full extent. I only say, in concluding my remarks on this point, that while we adhere, and must adhere, to the principle of Part IV, we do not by any means exclude the consideration of Amendments with a view to removing such anxiety as may reasonably exist about the exercise of those powers.

In conclusion, there are one or two remarks of a general character which I should like to be allowed to make. A good deal has been said as to whether this measure—and it is an important point of consideration—is to be regarded as a purely temporary and emergency measure, or whether it is, as the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) put it, a Bill for the reconstruction of agricultural life. It certainly is an emergency measure in this sense, that no Government that I can conceive in this country would have introduced a Bill of this character unless it had been driven to do so by the straits in which we find ourselves owing to the intensity and prolongation of the war. At the same time, it may be that the new principles adopted under the pressure of dire necessity may turn out in practice to have so much good in them that they may not afterwards be abandoned. There was one point which was made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in his speech last night with which I must say I cannot agree. He expressed the opinion that it was possible, and that it was even contemplated, that some portions of this measure—those which give the powers of control to a Government Department, and those which provide for a minimum wage to the agriculturist—would be permanent, and that other portions would disappear. I do not believe, I must honestly say, that this is possible. This Bill, criticise it as you will, is no loosely-strung series of incongruous and disconnected provisions. There are a lot of heterogeneous clauses, good or bad. But you will find that it is a well-compacted structure, and that certain definite principles run through it all.

I do not say that it may not be the object, or the desire, of some of the supporters of the Bill to make part of it permanent, and let the other lapse. But they will find, when they come to try it, that the thing cannot be done. I believe it will be impossible to adhere to what one part of the Bill embodies and to abandon the rest. If the State is going in the interests of the community to continue to take a hand in the conduct of agriculture, not, indeed, abolishing or doing violence to private interests but controlling them, if it is to continue to direct agricultural enterprise in certain channels, if on grounds of public policy it is going to continue to ensure a certain wage to the labourer in order to give him the means of leading a reasonable civic life, then it cannot possibly escape the necessity of continuing to provide by some means or another—and we need not discuss to-day by what means—that the capital and the brains devoted to agriculture shall be ensured of a reasonable return. Without being generally of a sanguine temperament, I may say that I am hopeful of the future in this respect. I believe there is a better time ahead for British agriculture; and I believe this because of the more general recognition which the war has brought about of the importance of a prosperous agriculture to the health of the State.

The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition took a rather gloomy view of this subject in his speech last night, because he seemed to suggest that the old antagonism and the old controversy between urban and rural interests would be aggravated by the introduction of a measure of this kind. I do not deny that for the moment that old controversy has been revived, but with a difference. I must say I think it is impossible to follow the debates which have taken place in the House of Commons on this subject, or the discussions in the Press, without recognising that a new sense of the importance of agriculture, of its vital importance to him, is beginning to dawn upon the mind of the urban voter. Of course, we are at the mercy—let us frankly recognise it—of the urban voter. If he does not realise the importance to him of agriculture, the cause is lost, with most serious and disastrous consequences to the country. But I believe myself that he is beginning to recognise it. You will have to convince him that the land is being cultivated in the manner most conducive to the general interests of the community. But if he has that conviction, I believe that his own attitude will be greatly modified, and that he will recognise that it is essential in his own interests that all classes who are engaged in agriculture shall be fairly treated, and that men shall not be deterred from engaging, but shall be encouraged to engage, their labour, their abilities, and their capital in what is, after all, the most vital of all national industries. It is in the hope that such a view will be taken by the vast majority of people in this country that the provisions of this Bill have been framed as they have been. If the growth of that attitude towards agriculture on the part of the non-agricultural population of this country is to be one of the dominant factors of the future, it will, I believe, be not the least valuable, perhaps even the most valuable, lesson that the nation has learned in the stern school of war.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, I look at this question from rather a different angle from that of my noble friend Lord Desborough or my noble friend Lord Chaplin. I look at it from the angle from which Lord Milner has just spoken. I welcome the Bill for two reasons. In the first place, I believe it to be a measure essential for winning the war. I am of opinion that the war is going to be pro-longed. I believe that the losses of shipping will continue to be very serious, and that this production of home-grown food may be the turning factor in the issue of the war. In the second place, I welcome this Bill as an introduction to a new permanent agricultural policy. Why do I believe that this new policy will be permanent, and why do I believe that it will be necessary? I do not think that any of us, whether we are urban voters, advanced Radicals, landowners, or farmers, are going to have any choice in this matter at all. The facts of the case are going to be too strong for us. We have, in my opinion, in a military sense ceased to be an island. Nobody can put a limit on the possible developments of the submarine or of the craft which sail in the air. Therefore I can foresee a future of the kind which Lord Crewe contemplated yesterday, but I do not draw the same conclusions as he would draw. He seemed to put a dilemma which does not really exist. He said that either our oversea communications will not be interrupted, in which case there will be no necessity from the point of view of national security to grow our food at home, or that they will be so interrupted that what is the use of talking of the union of the Empire for purposes of defence. I do not think that is the dilemma. The development of the submarine and of aircraft is going to be such as to render the conditions under which we shall fight a future war, if we ever have to fight one, very different from those under which we began this war. We all of us pray that there will never be such a war again, but we cannot gamble on that prayer.

In such a future war, as I foresee, while communication between different parts of the Empire might continue and movements of troops be possible, the whole of our naval or military power being devoted to those particular things, to my mind it is quite inconceivable—I do not mind putting it as strongly as that—that our oversea communications will be as uninterrupted as they were at the beginning of this war, or as they are now. Therefore it is impossible to rely on a volume of oversea trade sufficient to enable us to finance our Allies as we have done hitherto in this war, or to supply ourselves with food or munitions. Consequently it follows that if we wish to make our national position secure in the event of the calamity of any future war we must be self-sufficing in essentials—that is in munitions, in food, and in certain other articles which I need not dwell upon to-day. While, therefore, the conditions under which we should have to fight would be very different from those under which we have fought this war, and would have the effect of curtailing our power to support other nations in warfare by our finances our own insular position would not be less safe but more safe; because for exactly the same reason that our oversea communications would be much more jeopardised, so would any danger of invasion that ever existed become less possible than ever. But our position would, indeed, be parlous if we entered into such a contest without having secured independence in the matter of food supplies. I say that this would not be a matter of choice for any of us because, although Lord Crewe may have one opinion and I may have another, nobody, when he is brought face to face with it, will dare take the responsibility of gambling on the chance. Therefore I contend that this Bill is the precursor of a permanent policy, and we have to make that precursor as wide and as effective an introduction of that policy as we can.

It is not necessary for me to go over the ground that has been covered so well by previous speakers. Lord Milner and others have described the three essential parts of this policy—namely, stability of price for the farmer, assurance to the labourer of his fair share of the profits on agriculture, and an assurance to the State that the policy will be effective. If you once grant the assumption that for reasons of national security and existence such a policy of home-grown food production is necessary, of course it follows, as Lord Milner has said, that the State must have power to make that policy effective, and therefore it must have a sanction in reserve, and the sanction means compulsion in the last resort. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Milner that the mere existence of this power of compulsion will have an enormous effect in raising the standard of cultivation and a general sense of responsibility throughout the land. Because, strange as it may seem to my noble friends who are keen and competent agriculturists, I can endorse absolutely what Mr. Prothero has said—namely, that there is a strange amount of incompetence both in farming and in estate management in this country, far more than any of us had previously supposed, arising from personal idiosyncrasies or from the incompetence of individuals. Consequently for the success of this policy the power of compulsion must rest in the background.

I do not like to pass over the point which Lord Crewe made, and to which Lord Milner referred—namely, the unhappy supposed resurrection of the conflict of interests between the agricultural and the industrial populations. It is true that there were echoes of that in the House of Commons, but they were the echoes of the ignorance and prejudices of the past. When once the industrial population understand, as they will—I agree with Lord Milner in this—that this is not a policy conceived in the interests of landowners or of farmers but exclusively for national security, they will be prepared to accept it, just as they do naval or military expenditure, as part of the national insurance. That is the basis upon which to put it. And it is not difficult for them to accept it on that basis when the instrument is a guarantee and not a tariff. Let it always be remembered that under this policy the whole population of the country—the consumers—will benefit by the lowest price that exists. The price to them will be a world price. There is nothing in this policy which raises the price of the article by any degree whatever. Therefore I do not believe that this policy ought to, or will, as a matter of fact, arouse any conflict of interest between the agricultural and the industrial classes.

I do not pretend that the form of this Bill is exactly that which I myself would have chosen. I join with my noble friend Lord Chaplin in regretting that the Prime Minister should have given such definite assurances in certain points to the farmers, and then have departed from those assurances. I think that is deplorable; and it was a great error of judgment on his part that, having to depart from those assurances, he did not make a point of explaining to the farmers why he had so departed and endeavouring to carry them with him. While, therefore, I join in deploring some of these changes and think that they have not been improvements to the Bill, yet I do not believe they have made the whole difference to the Bill which my noble friend Lord Chaplin thinks. I still consider that the Bill will be effective for the purposes of food production, and that the changes which have been made have not destroyed its value for that purpose, and I think we may possibly make some changes in this House which will even strengthen it.

I do not propose to go through the whole of the Bill, but I want to say something on the wages question, on the rent clause, and on the compulsion clauses. I am not afraid of the Wages Boards. I am not in the least afraid either of them or of their decisions—on one condition (and here I think I shall carry my noble friend Lord Chaplin with me), if the Wages Boards are composed of men who really understand the subject, representative of the labourer, the farmer, and the landowner. I have such complete confidence in the common sense of my fellow-countrymen that I am convinced that these Wages Boards will do their very difficult work with complete satisfaction and without the perpetration of any act of folly; but I should not have at all the same confidence if the Wages Boards were composed of theorists or of politicians, and I think we shall have to ask His Majesty's Government to scrutinise the words of the clause very carefully from that point of view. Also let me say that I attribute the greatest importance to the Wages Board covering the area of a county, or in some cases it might be the area of two counties.

VISCOUNT MILNER

There is the district committee.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

That is merely a term. I should regard with great jealousy if too much power of overriding the decision of the district committee were given to the Board of Agriculture or to the Central Wages Board in London. Some such co-ordinating authority was clearly necessary, because it might happen that the district committee for, say, Wiltshire, would fix a wholly different scale from that fixed by the district committee for Dorsetshire, and that would not do. Therefore there must be some authority which could bring those two committees together in case of need and make them adjust the difference. So while I admit the necessity for a central authority, I think the real success of the measure will depend upon the amount of freedom and discretion left to the district committees. Again, I would ask the Government very carefully to scrutinise the words which seem to make it necessary for everybody who wishes to employ an aged or infirm or incompetent labourer at a lower wage than the minimum to go to London to get permission. It looks like that in the draft, and anything more grotesque, or impossible, or unworkable, could not be imagined. Therefore I ask that those words should be very carefully scrutinised. Also I do not sec that the words cover the case of the aged man; they cover the case of the physically or mentally infirm, but not that of the aged man.

It was on this subject, perhaps, that more theory was talked in the House of Commons than on any other. It was a very favourite phrase that the cost of production could not be increased to the farmer anywhere by the raising of wages because the value of labour was the same all the world over, and that if you gave the southern labourer the same wages as the Scotsman he would apparently the next day become of the same value to the farmer as the Scottish labourer. I am the last person to say a word against the southern labourer. I have the greatest possible affection and respect for him, but he has a wholly different view of the philosophy of life from that entertained by the northerner. The northerner migrates every year; the southerner wishes for nothing more than that he should die in the cottage in which he married. The northerner, with his larger wages, sends his womenfolk out into the fields; the southerner keeps them at home. The northerner works strenuously for eleven hours a day; the southerner works a good deal less strenuously for nine hours. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, in my judgment, if you were to ask the southerner whether he would prefer 35s. a week with the Scotsman's hours of work and the driving force put into that work during those hours, or 25s. for the southern hours of work and the southern standard of work, in almost every case the southerner would choose the lower wage with the conditions he understands and appreciates. It is the wholly different philosophy of life, as I said before. Therefore it is absurd to think that in the transition period, unless great care is taken, you would not do grievous harm to agriculture by putting the standard of wages in the South at the same rate at which it stands in the North. Consequently it is of the utmost importance that those who deal with this question should really understand it.

I do not think there is any necessity to explain the effect of the rent clause, because that was agreed between Lord Desborough and Lord Milner. I quite understand why that clause was put into this Bill. It was felt that there would be a certain prejudice in uninformed quarters in the House of Commons and in the urban districts if it were not put in, and also, no doubt, the Government were very anxious to give the maximum inducement possible to the farmer to cultivate more land. But I think it ought to be said here, and put on record, that it would be disastrous if such a rent clause as this were made part of any permanent policy. It is necessary that we should remind the country from time to time what are the real conditions of the partnership between the landowner and the farmer. They are partners in the cultivation of the land, and the landowner puts a good deal more capital into that partnership than the farmer; and the landowner is entitled to just as good an interest on the capital which he puts in as the farmer is on his. Of course, in addition the farmer is entitled to the reward of management. But unless the landowner is assured of commercial return on the money which he invests on the industrial equipment of the land, he will not invest money in that way. Nobody else would, so why should he? It will be of the utmost consequence after the war that every encouragement should be given to the farmer to put what capital he can into the cultivation of the soil, and to the landowner to put what capital he can into the industrial equipment of the land. If the acres are ploughed up which the Government contemplate, it will mean more buildings, more roads, more cottages, more drains—and that is part of the landlord's contribution. Therefore no more short-sighted or disastrous policy could he pursued than to endeavour to limit the landowner's power of acquiring a commercial interest on the capital he invests.

If the landowner and the farmer are left alone, they will be able to adjust this matter completely satisfactorily, but if the State tries to interfere by means of any such clause as this which for reasons we understand has been inserted in this Bill, the consequences will be disastrous. The fact is that the part which the intelligent landowner can play in the development of agriculture is very great and is constantly increasing; and if there is such a permanent policy, as I hope, after this war, the opportunities of influence and of leadership which will be open to the landowners in this country will be far greater than they have ever been before. All the same, I think those who have very large estates have been wise in selling off parts of them, especially when they sold them to their tenants. It is only human that the landowner should not like the compulsory clauses of this Bill. I do not believe myself that a landowner like Lord Desborough, or, I hope, myself, though I am a very small one, has anything whatever to fear from such powers. I do not think these powers ought to have any terrors for the reasonably good and sensible landowner.

But granted that such powers must be given to the Board of Agriculture. I think it is very important how the clause is framed under which the powers will be exercised. I consider it is quite right that the Board of Agriculture should have the, power to raise the question, to say that on that estate or on this farm matters are being mismanaged and the food production of the country is being unjustifiably curtailed. But although it is fair and right that the Board of Agriculture should have the power to raise the question, I do not think it at all right that they should have the power to try the question—the question of whether, as a matter of fact, the farm is being badly cultivated or the estate is being so badly mismanaged as to make it a national danger. In each case that matter should be tried by the peer of the man accused—namely, by an agriculturist or agriculturists of approved capacity or authority, or by arbitrators or assessors, but not in a Court of Law. It is not a question for a Judge. It is a question for agriculturists, and for the best that can be found; and the person or authority that should appoint those arbitrators is not the Board of Agriculture. It ought to be some perfectly independent authority wholly divorced from politics. Under such a system I think the powers of compulsion, which we have acknowledged to be necessary, can be exercised with great advantage to agriculture and to the country generally, and without any terrors, as I have already said, for the sensible and wise landowner.

We cannot conceal from ourselves that to the landowners there are many difficulties arising out of this policy; but it is one thing to ask the landowners to accept such a policy as this because it is necessary for the safety of the country, and quite another thing to try and force such a policy on them out of political theory or for Party reasons. Therefore I hope that noble Lords and landowners generally will view these proposals from a very different standpoint from that from which they would have viewed them four or five years ago. I cannot myself believe that it can by any possibility be otherwise than to the advantage in the long run of landowners as a class that agriculture, for the first time for several generations, should be put into a position of permanent security and stability.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My Lords, as no one has yet spoken for the North, I may, perhaps, be excused for addressing you. In one way I do not agree with what my noble friend who has just sat down said about the difference in the hours of the English and the Scottish labourers, though to a large extent he is correct. Though there may be difficulties about the Wages Boards, I hope that the system will answer. At any rate, something is required to regulate the wages question at the present time. My own belief is that the real solution of the wages question is to a very large extent the amount of work done by piece-work. It would lead to a great unity of interest. I know there are difficulties, but I think in the majority of cases they can be overcome. I believe that this is the way in which these difficulties would be best got over. It is also the, way in which you would attract the best of the agricultural labourers to the land and keep them there.

There is one thing that this war has brought out, which has been very well put by my noble friend Lord Milner and by other speakers—namely, the recognition of how essential good agriculture is to the existence and prosperity of the country. What many of us fear in regard to this Bill is that, although it is called a Corn Production Bill, in reality it is more or less of a make-believe. As far as one can see, it will not have much effect during the war. It would be a very great mistake to encourage the people of this country to think that a great deal more is going to be done under this Bill, because in the event of matters not going as well as we expect and our being suddenly brought face to face with a great shortage of food, the fact of the people having been encouraged to think we can produce as much as we require will lead to disappointment. In that connection one must point out this inconsistency on the part of the Government—that, at the same time as they introduce this Bill and fix minimum prices, without any warning whatever maximum prices have been placed on cattle. This action, as everybody knows, has created consternation among the farmers of the country, and has completely shaken their confidence in any promises and proposals made by the Government of the day. I think it is assumed by the farmer that, although these are minimum prices, if prices go higher they will have the benefit of those higher prices. If on the other hand, the Food Controller, or some other Controller or Director, as soon as this Bill is passed, fixes the maximum price for wheat and oats at either the minimum price in this Bill or at some lower price, it will be a most scandalous breach of faith to the farming community. I hope that this will be borne in mind, because it is by carrying the farming industry with you, and by that means alone, that in this time of stress any really great improvement in agriculture and increase of production can take place. I think, from the speeches of the noble Viscount and the noble Earl who spoke last, we most certainly have come to the conclusion that there is a great probability, if not almost a certainty, of this Bill being, not a temporary, but a permanent measure, though perhaps not exactly in its present form. Therefore I think that your Lordships should be specially careful, in Committee, to see that it is formed into a really good and practical measure.

A great deal has been said about rents, and whether or not rents can be raised. The noble Duke who moved the Second Reading gave certain figures, and I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I give some others, taken from an article on agriculture which has appeared in a Scottish newspaper. There have been several articles in the Scotsman written by people with a great knowledge of agriculture, and this extract is from the last article dealing with the burdens on land— As an example of the actual incidence of the more important of the annual burdens above mentioned, the following figures are given from a fairly large estate in the South of Scotland, where the local rates and also the stipends are comparatively low—certainly well below an average. The burdens are those for the year ending Whitsunday 1917, and are calculated on the Valuation Roll rental— The rates in this district are considerably below what they are on an average— The total owners' public and parochial burdens, other than income Tax and Super-Tax, averaged over several parishes 4s. 0.03d. per £ of which about one-half was stipend. The owners' Income Tax and Super-Tax, after all deductions allowed, amounted to 6s. 4.67d. per £, making a total of 10s. 4.70d. per £ for these annnual burdens and taxes alone. According to the Inland Revenue valuation of this estate at the last succession—and assuming an interval of twenty years between successions—the burden of Death Duties is equivalent to an annual charge of 3s. 10. 80d. per £ of Valuation Roll rental. Adding this sum to the amount of annual taxation above stated gives a total average annual payment in taxation of 14s. 3.50d per £, irrespective of mortgage interest and of all costs of management, insurance, repairs, and maintenance. This shows—and I think everybody will agree—that there are very few estates which can he properly maintained under an expenditure of 25 per cent. of the gross rental, so that this would leave a sum of less than 1s. per £ for mortgage interest and for the owner to live upon.

To show your Lordships how the burdens have come, I will give you an illustration from an estate of my own. Prior to the war, five years average of the stipend paid came to £900. At present it is considerably over £4,000. It is very difficult to meet that without raising rents. It would be, of course, outrageous if anybody were to take advantage of anything obtainable from the Government, or because of the war, to raise the rents and take the benefit from the farmer, who has enormous trouble in growing crops and has to run great risks. I hope the people of this country, however, will not run away with the idea that low rents mean good farming. As a rule, the very opposite is the case. Nevertheless, I do not think the farmers are altogether to blame. They have been so interfered with of late years that many of them have not taken advantage of low rents to make money, because they thought they were being so badgered about. But I know some who have taken advantage of low rents and who have cultivated their land very well, though, on the other hand, others have neglected the cultivation of their land. One thing is certain. If a farm is not cultivated, the, people who suffer as much as anybody from that are the labouring classes, because it naturally lessens the demand for labour.

The great objection to be raised to this Bill is to that Part which gives power to the Boards of Agriculture in England and in Scotland to interfere. Whether it is a success or not, I think everybody will agree that what is wanted is not interference. There has been far too much of that in the past. What farmers and everybody connected with agriculture want is encouragement and assistance. The people of this country will be led, but you will never drive them. I do not wish, of course, to say a word against the Board of Agriculture. But although there are many people who may manage their estates badly and many farmers who may farm badly, on the whole the estate management and the farming of the country are quite as much up to date as the Board of Agriculture. It is not, perhaps, fair to blame the Board of Agriculture for many of the sins it may have committed. But what we want to know, and what I think your Lordships should always try as far as possible to enforce in the future, is that the Board of Agriculture is to be used for the benefit of agriculture and for the benefit of the country, not for the benefit of a particular Party or clique of politicians who happen to form the Government of the day. There has been far too much of that sort of thing, and far too many officials appointed, not because of their knowledge of agriculture, but because they had rendered political services or were expected to do so in future. Until that is stopped you will get neither the farmers, nor the labourers, nor the landowners in the country to have complete confidence in the Board of Agriculture. On the other hand, I think many of your Lordships will admit that whenever they have questions to deal with the Board of Agriculture are exceedingly courteous and generally do the best they can. But this is the real point. If the Board of Agriculture will encourage and assist and lead everybody is prepared to follow them. If, however, there is going to be perpetual interference, instead of obtaining greater production you will get a considerable reduction.

After all, what does it really come to? Your Lordships know quite well that no trade can be successful or prosperous unless there is a steady flow of capital into it; and good men are enticed into an industry because they know that they have proper security and a chance of making a fair return on their money. Has that been the case with regard to agriculture for many years past? Of course, it has not. A far surer way to success than fixing minimum wages and minimum prices is to give security that there will be fair play to everybody, and to encourage the flow of brains and capital into agriculture. By this means you will produce far more out of the land than by any attempts at coercion or anything else.

There is one clause to which I do not think any one, not even the noble Duke, has alluded. I refer to Clause 10, which might be called the "rabbit clause." I will not venture to say whether or not the method proposed is the best way to effect the object which we desire, but I think it is a perfect scandal that in many cases people who do their best to destroy all rabbits and preserve their farms and crops from injury should have a swarm of rabbits from neighbouring land invading and ravishing their farms. It is only reasonable that there should be some measures provided to prevent people from causing damage to their neighbours in this way as well as in other ways.

I think we must look to the future of this Bill, because we pretty well know now that it will not be of very short duration, but may become a permanent Statute. In some ways the lines on which the Bill is drawn are probably not the best, but there are great difficulties, and allowances must be made. I do not quite agree with the arguments of my noble friend about payment on production instead of on acreage. There are difficulties in connection with this point, and I hope other measures will be taken to help the people to produce as much as they can in the future. Lately this question has been thrown in the teeth of agriculturists in this country, "Why cannot you, with better land and a better climate, produce as much as, or more than, they do in Germany? "The answer is that the German people—and it has proved their salvation in this war up to now—have undergone great sacrifices to do all they could in order to encourage their agriculture and to obtain the greatest possible production from their land. On the other hand, our object has been to encourage the greatest amount of agricultural produce to come from abroad. Consequently we are in a very difficult position. Although the Germans have no doubt suffered from a great shortage, they cannot be absolutely starved; whereas if the sea were shut to us entirely—which I do not think it will be—there is that danger before us.

The question in the future is, Will the people of this country consider the importance of encouraging agriculture in order to get it developed, not only to the same pitch as, but to a greater pitch than, has been the case in Germany? The people of this country are the finest agriculturists in the world if they have a chance. Will they consent to certain privations in order to achieve that object? If so, there is no difficulty in having as much land in proportion cultivated in this country as anywhere in the world. What has not been sufficiently recognised is that it is not altogether the acreage which produces. What we have to go for now is the unity of labour—I do not mean only human labour, but machinery and everything else.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Per farm?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

No; the amount of labour. That is one way in which it can be done. I do not think we must consider that this country will ever be altogether a corn-growing country, but we ought to put ourselves after this war in such a position that; even the lands which are not growing corn should be in such a state that they could be cultivated in a satisfactory way if necessary. I think there is probably more neglect of the grass lands in this country than there is of the arable. A great amount of improvement could be made in that respect, which would give an enormous reserve upon which we could fall back in the event of another war, because it would be all in good order for ploughing up. I do not know what will be done in the future. Probably the people in this country would never agree to a high protective tariff, but it is probable that after the war it may be necessary to impose duties on some articles for the mere sake of revenue. But apart from that, there is one way in which I think the Board of Agriculture can help—namely, in the cheaper production of lime and manures. At the present time the whole country is crying out for lime, because it cannot be produced at a price which the farmers can afford to pay. In that connection the Government might help by way of subsidies or otherwise. It is by increasing the fertility of the soil, by ensuring that the labourer has a good wage, and by encouraging the farmer that we shall get over this difficulty now and improve our agriculture in the future.

But if what many of us are afraid of comes about—that is to say, if we are going to have a huge army of officials in the country—then things will go back very fast. It would be a most serious thing for the country if a large number of farmers, on account of interference, or the fixing of maximum prices, and so forth, were to give up their farms, because there is nobody to put in their places; and, however able the Board of Agriculture may be, I should doubt whether there are any there who have the time, and very few who have the experience, to enable them to manage the farms. Therefore the people of this country must submit to giving the farmers a fair chance, and I think it is recognised in your Lordships' House that in the past they have not always had fair treatment.

On the whole, I hope that the Bill will be a success. I think that there are many faults in it, and that it is easy to pick holes in it. But this has been a difficult occasion. If the measure is carried out in a proper way, however, it may do a great deal of good to the country; and I am convinced that all landowners and practically all farmers are most anxious to get over the difficulties with which they are beset and to do their very best to help the country in the most valuable way they can—namely, by providing as much food as is possible, both in grain and in stocks, for the benefit of their fellow-countrymen.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY)

My Lords, I do not rise to add anything on the general aspect of the Bill, but to make a few remarks with reference to one point that has been touched upon by more than one speaker—namely, the effect of submarine warfare in the future on the agriculture of this country, and the prospect of this measure, or some other measure like it, being of a permanent nature. For myself, I believe that the submarine peril is a passing peril. I think that by our own exertions, by the inventions of science, and with the help of our invaluable Allies the Americans, we shall get the better of it in this war. But the bearing of the question on this Bill is more with regard to the future, and I think that one element of the case has been too much ignored—namely, that submarine warfare as now carried on by the Germans is absolutely illegal according to International Law. International Law for the present is suspended, but I do not believe that International Law is altogether dead; and I trust that when we have achieved victory we shall make it one of the terms of peace that Germany shall recognise International Law. It is perfectly clear that the right of dealing with merchantmen at sea extends to taking prizes into Court and having them condemned. The right of destruction of merchantmen, even hostile merchantmen, is restricted within very narrow limits indeed. The wholesale destruction which Germany has carried on in the course of her submarine warfare is absolutely and utterly illegal. One term of peace, of course, must be an explicit admission by Germany of that fact, not that I should attach any great importance to any undertaking given by Germany, but the matter will assume a totally different aspect if such an undertaking enters into a Treaty concurred in by all the great Powers engaged in the war, who undertake to see that it is enforced. The men who have perpetrated these outrages are constantly spoken of as pirates. No epithet can be too strong for them. But pirates in the legal sense they are not, because they are acting under the orders of their own Government. I should be very much disappointed if, when we come to dictate the terms of peace, we do not insist on its being a term that, with regard to such destruction of merchantmen at sea by submarines, the command of a Government shall be no defence, and that the men engaged in the perpetration of such outrages shall meet the fate which pirates would meet, and which they deserve. I trust we shall insist on that. I believe that if all the world is united, as I think it will be, in insisting that such terms shall be observed, we shall find that when the illegality of the practice had been admitted, and when provision had been made for the punishment of everybody engaged in such practices in the future, havoc of this kind—I will not call it warfare—would cease to be employed among the nations of the world. What has taken place in this way has revolted the conscience of the world, and I believe there is not a nation outside Germany which would not welcome such a term in the Treaty of Peace, which I hope at no distant date we shall be in a position to dictate.

On Question, Bill read 2^*, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

My Lords, I have been asked by the Clerk of the House to remind your Lordships that it will be difficult to guarantee Amendments being circulated on Monday morning unless they are received at the House by midday to-morrow. Therefore if any noble Lord sends in an Amendment after twelve o'clock to-morrow it may not be circulated until Tuesday morning.