Lords Sitting of 15 August 1917

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) (No. 2)—Petition of the South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Company under their Common Seal praying for leave to bring in a Bill to confer further borrowing powers upon the Company, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Intermediate Education (Ireland)—Report under the Intermediate Education Act, 1914, as to the application of the Teachers' Salaries Grant:
Agricultural Statistics (Ireland)—Abstract showing the Acreage under Crops and the numbers and description of Live Stock in each County and Province, 1916–1917:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Burgh of Greenock and confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland—Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

ISSUE OF DISCHARGE PAPERS.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to the delay in issuing discharge papers, and the hardship thereby inflicted on old and deserving soldiers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to an individual case—there are others of a similar character, I believe, but I hope there are not very many—I feel that I owe no apology to your Lordships, for I have made it a rule for a long time never to bring anything before Parliament as long as I could get reasonable satisfaction from the authority immediately concerned. It was only because I was unable to obtain satisfactory replies with regard to this case that I eventually decided to bring it before your Lordships' House; and I extremely regret that I shall have to bother the noble Earl the Secretary of State for War upon it, for he has many more important things to do, and he is really not responsible in any way for the existence of what I submit is a real grievance.
The case is one of a regimental sergeant-major of Yeomanry, who had retired before the war and very patriotically came forward again, and he has served since the commencement of the war some two years with his regiment and subsequently at a station in the South of England, where he filled the same position. On March 3 he applied for transfer to Canterbury, in order that he might serve in a labour battalion. He is an agriculturist by profession, and he thought that he would be of more use in such a battalion than as a regimental sergeant-major where he was. That was approved by his own commanding officer and by the commanding officer at Canterbury, but when he got to a higher authority it was not approved, I fancy because it was thought that there was no room for him. At the same time a substitute was sent down to fill this man's position at the station where he was. There is no complaint about that. He is an old man, and it is better to have younger men. He stayed there some weeks to assist his successor in learning the ways of the office, which he eventually handed over to him.
On April 27 this sergeant-major applied for transfer to Class W of the A Reserve, which means that retention is kept on his services but he is free to go to civil employment; and leave was granted for this purpose, pending transfer, on April 28, and he drew pay up to June 7. This is his grievance, that for two months he has drawn no pay, and he has been unable, because he cannot obtain the transfer that he applied for—the transfer to Class W of the A Reserve—to get any civil employment. On July 4 the necessary forms were sent to him to be filled in, and his leave was extended, pending discharge. Then on August 4 he was ordered to report to the officer commanding the agricultural battalion at Canterbury, which he did; but it was found that the establishment had been reduced and there was no room for him in that battalion. That is the position at this moment.
On August 11 this man was shown a telegram, asking whether he desired discharge in order to work on his own farm. He has not got a farm at the present moment, but he has been in negotiation, hoping to get his discharge, for two or three farms. Two of them he has lost, and one he is still in negotiation for. But

411
here is the fact, that for two months this man has drawn no pay, and at the same time has been retained by the Army and prevented from taking up civil employment. I think the case is made worse by the fact that this man is an agriculturist, and could have been made of real use in some agricultural employment.
As I have said, I never bring cases before Parliament if I can get a reasonably satisfactory answer from the authority immediately concerned. When this man came to me and asked what he had better do—it was some six weeks ago—I said that I would write to the General Officer Commanding, and I had no doubt that I would be able to get the matter expedited. I wrote to the General Officer Commanding the Eastern Command, and after a few days I received a reply that the papers had gone to York, and that the man had no right to appeal to me. I object to that. I consider that any one who feels that he is aggrieved has a right to appeal to one or other of his Members of Parliament, and where I feel that a citizen has been unfairly treated I regard it as my duty and my privilege to take the case up and endeavour to get it settled, privately if possible, but, if not, to bring it before Parliament. I have been unable to get any settlement in this case. It is more than a month since I brought the matter to the notice of the General Officer Commanding; still this man is getting no pay, and is not allowed to obtain civil employment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having had the courtesy to send me, previous to asking the Question, the particulars of this case; and, if I may say so, I am glad that this case should be raised, because it shows that often the statement that is made by a man to either his Member of Parliament or to some member of your Lordships' House with whom he is acquainted does not accord with the true facts of the case. I would like to give the noble Lord my side of the story. The warrant officer to whom he refers was sent on leave pending a decision as to whether he should be discharged or future military employment found for him. He was never promised a discharge; he was only told that he might go on leave while his case was being considered. This leave was further extended until, being an agriculturist, he was transferred to an agricultural company on July
412
31. He was in receipt of pay and allowances up to May 25.
LORD HARRIS: He acknowledges to June 7.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Then I think he may have some money to refund. But this is where the discrepancy comes in as between my facts and those of the noble Lord. As this man was working on his own farm—
LORD HARRIS: He has not got a farm.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My information is that he has, and that he was not entitled to pay and allowances beyond that date. The noble Lord will understand that this man has never been discharged, and is not entitled to his discharge and character sheets. Towards the end of June this year your Lordships will remember that there was a good deal of pressure brought here and elsewhere for agriculturists to be found for work on the land, and the War Office was ordered to provide a large number of men to be formed into agricultural companies for that purpose. To form these companies warrant and non-commissioned officers were required, and this particular warrant officer was recalled from furlough—because that is what he was on—and transferred to an agricultural company with effect from July 31. From the inquiries which I have made into the case—and I can assure the noble Lord I have gone into it as carefully as I could—no irregularity seems to have taken place, although I appreciate that circumstances may have caused disappointment to the man, who thought, because he was sent on furlough pending the consideration of his case, that this meant that the furlough was going to terminate in his discharge. Every effort is made to avoid delay in issuing discharge papers to men who have been discharged, but in this particular case the man was never discharged and was never entitled to a discharge paper.
LORD HARRIS: The noble Earl has given no explanation why the man has not drawn pay for two months.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not think the noble Lord would regard it as right that a man should draw Army pay for working on his own farm, which is what we contend he was doing. Since the time

413
when the man was called back to an agricultural company, and therefore became at the disposal of the military authorities for use in any agricultural district, he has drawn pay; but while working on his own farm—and I will inquire as to this discrepancy between the noble Lord's information and my own—naturally he, did not draw any pay.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think my noble friend has practically disposed of this case; but I wish to make one suggestion to him. Most of your Lordships find that cases are brought to your notice from time to time of men who fall into a sort of hiatus between the time of discharge, and the time of pension or of employment. I am not suggesting that the War Office have been wanting in this respect. On the contrary, I think, having regard to the enormous number of men with which they have had to deal, the whole business has been conducted with a degree of promptitude which is wonderful. At the same time I remember that in the last war it became necessary to establish a sort of small clearing house for such cases as fell somehow or other between two stools—that is to say, some official in the War Office to whom application could be sent, and by whom a case which had slipped through could be hunted up. In the last war this was done with great satisfaction; and having regard to the fact that demobilisation must take place some day and that then the business will have to be dealt with on a large scale, I throw out this suggestion for the consideration of my noble friend.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am speaking without the details in front of me, so that I would not like to be held entirely to what my impression is. But it is my impression that this is all done now through the Record Offices, and we are endeavouring to strengthen the Record Offices. But the difficulty has been that in this great war, owing to the impossibility of keeping men in the regiments in which they first started, it sometimes happens that the papers of a man go from one Record Office to another. This means delay. We are endeavouring in every way we can to get over that difficulty, and I hope that we shall be able to overcome it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: If it were known to the public to what Office they
414
should address communications on these matters, it might save a good deal of correspondence.

CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Payments to growers where average price of wheat or outs is lets than minimum.
1. If the average price for the wheat or oats of any year for which a minimum price is fixed under this Act, as ascertained for the purpose of this Part of this Act, is less than the minimum price as fixed by this Act, the occupier of any land on which wheat or oats have been produced in that year shall be entitled to be paid by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in respect of each acre on which he proves to the satisfaction of the Board that wheat or oats have been so produced, a sum equal in the case of wheat to four times, and in the case of oats to five times, the difference between the average price and the minimum price per quarter:
Provided that—

(a) if it appears to the Board in respect, of any land on which wheat or oats have been produced that the wheat or oats were intermixed with any other crop, the amount payable in respect of that land shall be adjusted accordingly in such manner as the Board think proper; or

(b) 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.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved to omit from Clause 1 the words "acre on," and to insert "quarter of wheat or oats." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to restore the basis of inducement to increase the growth of corn on a great scale to the production of corn rather than the quantity of acreage on which it is cultivated. Your Lordships

415
may remember that I stated, in the observations which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the only consideration by which I should be guided in the course of this measure was whether it would or would not, in its form when it left this House, be calculated to increase the production of corn in this country; and it, is because, in my humble opinion, the change from the production basis to acreage militates very greatly against increased production that I am entirely opposed to the change which was made in the House of Commons.
What are the two main essentials for the increase of corn in this country? The first, of course, is that Parliament should take care that it will pay to grow it; the second, which is not less essential, is to ensure the loyal and whole-hearted cooperation of those who have to grow it. If you will only give them the means which they know to be necessary for the purpose, you will have the ready cooperation and the loyal support of the cultivators. The desired object, however, cannot be accomplished immediately. The noble Viscount, Lord Milner, seemed to think that I expected, or thought, it ought to be done at once. That, of course, is impossible. It never could have been done, for instance, by the year 1918, as the Prime Minister supposed, and I think distinctly stated, it would be. But it can be accomplished if it is done properly and by the right means, and I hope I shall live long enough to see it brought about.
As I have said, the Bill as drawn now is entirely opposed to both of the essentials I have mentioned. May I say a word in the first place upon the second essential? I receive by every post communications on this subject from individual farmers who are known to me, and from a great many others whom I do not know. I have also had resolutions and letters from branches of the National Farmers' Union, from the secretary and chairman of the National Union itself, from branch Chambers of Agriculture all over the country, and from the Central Chamber of Agriculture itself, from the secretary of which I received a letter since I arrived at the House this afternoon which I have not yet had time to read. I received one by this morning's post from a branch Chamber of Agriculture at Bishop's Stortford, in Essex; and Essex, as everybody knows, is a famous wheat-growing county. That letter expressed
416
great regret that the Bill had been changed in this particular direction, and most earnestly appealed to your Lordships' House to change the Bill back again to the production basis.
The Minister of Agriculture was kind enough to send me a typed paper explaining the reasons why the change to acreage had been made. I propose to show, from the example which he submitted to me, that it works in entire hostility to the course which I conceive ought to be taken if you really want to increase production. The Minister of Agriculture took the harvest of 1918 as his example. He said that the guaranteed price would be 55 s. for wheat and 32 s. for oats, and he assumed that the Gazette prices, by which the payments of the Government are governed, would be for the same year 50 s. for wheat and 31 s. for oats. Then he took the case of a farmer who grows wheat on twenty-five acres, producing 75 quarters, which is at the rate of 3 quarters only per acre, and he sells it at 49 s. a quarter. He also grows oats on 30 acres, producing 180 quarters, or six quarters per acre. Then the Minister for Agriculture goes on to show what this farmer gets from sales on the acreage basis. What he gets at three quarters to the acre for wheat and six quarters to the acre for oats comes to a total of £471 15 s. After all, this is nothing very striking in the matter of production. Three quarters to the acre is nothing out of the way. I should consider it below the average, undoubtedly of good cultivation. It is a common thing in first-class cultivation to grow five quarters to the acre; it is still more common to grow four. I have worked out what the results would be at four quarters per acre for wheat and eight quarters per acre for oats. In that case the total which the farmer would get from sales, worked out on the production basis, would be £629. Now I take the case of five quarters of wheat to the acre and ten quarters of oats. That may seem excessive, but I have known cases of good land where eleven quarters of oats were grown per acre on good rich fen land. I here work out that on the production basis the cultivator would get £786, as against £471 under the scheme of the Government. I ask your Lordships which basis is the one more likely to lead to increased production.
I have never been able to find out what really was the reason for the change to the acreage basis which was made in the House

417
of Commons, but one that I have heard is this. It is said that the acreage basis would be much fairer to fanners all round. With great deference and submission. I suggest that this is not the question we have to consider. This Bill is not introduced for the benefit of this or that farmer, or for the benefit of the big or the little farmer. It is a measure of an extreme character, introduced solely and entirely for the purpose of increasing the production of corn in this country as much as we possibly can, in view of the submarine menace and other troubles of tonnage, in order to prevent the people of this country even from being pinched as to their main article of food. The real question we have to consider, in my humble opinion, is how the largest possible increase is to be obtained. That is, and ought to be, the first object we have in view.
What does Mr. Prothero, the President of the Board of Agriculture, say upon this question? I am sorry to make quotations, but I really have no choice. I must make the best fight I can for my purpose, and I hope to make it in a way that may even convince the House of Commons, who I believe have great faith, and very rightly, in Mr. Prothero, although they have taken the opportunity constantly of disagreeing with him. Mr. Prothero said—
" I would point out this, that if von make an offer, let it be a firm offer; do not let it be conditional on somebody else deciding whether it has been carried out satisfactorily."
That is the one thing to which the people in the country of all classes, and the farmers particularly, have an objection. They cannot bear the idea of what they call "gentlemen from London" being sent down to teach them their own business, a business which they understand ten times better; and they are perfectly right. Mr. Prothero went on to say—
To say to the farmer, You shall have this allowance, whatever it may be, provided you satisfy such and such public body of officials, is not an offer which would give confidence to the farmer."
But you will have to go through this process if you put the basis upon acreage You must do it in order to see that the money is not simply thrown away. Then Mr. Prothero said—
"Finally, the Amendment will work, as I think, in a most unfair way."
Then he gave an illustration of what he meant. He said—
418
"Supposing there are two farms, side by side, of exactly the same quality—150 acres each. On farm A the farmer is a man of enterprise, he has got 60 acres of land under the plough. Farmer B is one of the slow-moving, cautious, and slack kind, who goes on mating a small but safe profit, and he has not got anacre under the plough. Under the Bill each of those farmers plough up 30 acres, that is to say, farmer A has now 90 acres under the plough and farmer B 30 acres under the plough. Assume that each of them puts one-third of his land under seeds or roots, and that farmer A grows 30 acres of wheat and 30 acres of oats. He will get 120 quarters on his 30 acres of wheat and 150 quarters on his 30 acres of oats. Farmer B grows 10 acres each, namely 44 quarters of wheat and 50 quarters of oats. When you come to make payment under this Amendment, supposing the price of wheat meanwhile had fallen from 45 s. under the Bill to 34 s., a difference of 11 s., and that oats similarly had fallen from 24 s. to 20 s.; three times 11 s. has got to be paid on the 30 acres of wheat on each of these farms—that is, 990 s. to each farmer. On farm A that works out at 5s. per quarter on 120 quarters of wheat and 2s. 7d. a quarter on the 150 quarters of oats. On farm B it works out at 15 s. a quarter on the 40 quarters of wheat and 7s. 9d. a quarter on the 50 quarters of oats. So that farmer A, who has really done the most for the nation, the man who has grown the most wheat, gets for his wheat, with the bonus, 39 s. a quarter—that is, 6s. under the minimum price—and for his oats 22 s. 7d. a quarter. On the other hand, farmer B. the man who has done nothing all these years, the man who has been a slacker, a lag-behind, and who has refused to follow the example of his more enterprising and energetic neighbour, under this Amendment gets for his 40 quarters of wheat 49 s. a quarter, or 4s. above the minimum price. Farmer A, the man of enterprise, gets 6s. less than the minimum price. Farmer B will get on his oats 27 s. 9d.—that is, 3s. 9d. more than the minimum price—whilst the more enterprising farmer only gets 22 s. 4d."
Then Mr. Prothero said—
" I appeal to hon. Members whether an Amendment that can work so unfairly as that is one which this House ought to adopt."
Could any man have spoken more strongly? He is the Minister of Agriculture at the present moment, and he expresses, when he makes those statements, exactly my own views on a subject with which I have been familiar throughout the whole of my life.
What I am doing in this Amendment is this. I am trying to help the Minister of Agriculture in the appeal which he has made. I venture to carry that appeal a little further and to make it to your Lordships' House myself. This is a subject with which, as I have said, I have been familiar for years. Mind you, we are engaged in a task which is to you, to me, to all of us, a task of immense responsibility. We are seeking to make our country secure from one of the greatest dangers that can arise to it—the danger of

419
possible starvation and shortage of food—whilst we are engaged in this tremendous war; and I ask you, my Lord's, with my whole heart and soul, to support me on this occasion. I appeal to you to support my Amendment, because I believe that something of this nature is vital to the future security and safety of the nation.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out (" acre on ") and insert (" quarter of wheat or oats ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in the debate on the Second Reading I said something on this controversy between the acreage basis and the production basis. Therefore I do not wish to argue the question at length, but I desire to say a word in support of the principle which has been so eloquently put forward by my noble friend behind me. The arguments, as I understand, have been set out, on the one hand, as representing the interest of the larger farmer, the regular wheat-grower in the wheat counties, who, it is contended, will get too much benefit out of the production basis. He, it is said, has already been in the habit of growing large quantities of wheat; he knows that his land is suited to it; he will do what my noble friend desires him to do—namely, try to grow still more—but he will be somewhat over-rewarded out of public money for so doing, and perhaps for doing what he would have done in any case. On the other hand, it is argued, you have the small farmer who does not live in a wheat-growing county, whose land has been, perhaps, mainly grazing or dairying before, and who, in response to the appeal of His Majesty's Government, decides to plough up his land and attempt to grow wheat; he may not make a very good thing of it—he certainly will not produce the five, and probably not the four, quarters to the acre of which my noble friend spoke—he may make a somewhat poor show as a wheat-grower, but still he will have done his duty by his country, and therefore he deserves, it is contended, more reward than the regular wheat-grower, who, on the production basis, would get the advantage. If this were an Agricultural Holdings Bill, all this would be an exceedingly good argument. But it is not. It is a Corn Production Bill, and the basis which I venture to ask the House to take is that which will produce the greatest amount of corn, not that which will serve as a reward
420
to the well-meaning but perhaps not entirely competent man, who, in a burst of loyalty and national spirit, ploughs up his land. It is quite true that he ought to get some reward for his patriotic conduct, and so he will if his land is reasonably fitted for the purpose. But if he tries to put under corn land which will not grow corn, I cannot think, however admirable his motives, that he ought to be the recipient of national funds for the purpose.
Therefore, my Lords, one comes back to the objections which exist, and, as I venture to think, hold the field, against the acreage basis. It cannot be denied that the tendency of taking a purely acreage basis will be to encourage only the growth of average crops on the acres that are ploughed. The attempt to achieve extra production, which it is the object of this Bill to bring about, is by no means always necessarily a lucrative thing for the farmer. High farming does not in all cases, as we know, pay. From the days of Mr. Mechi, of Tiptree, who, after having set fifty years ago a most brilliant example to the farmers of the country, himself, I believe, failed—from those days it has not been found that the very highest type of farming in a country like this, where the seasons are so uncertain, necessarily pays. But if you want to stimulate production, you want to stimulate higher farming, and that is precisely what the change of basis now in the Bill will not, I think, succeed in doing. And, in the second place, you run the danger to which I alluded in the, early part of my remarks—that you may encourage people, simply for the sake of saying they have grown so many acres of corn, to plough up land which, for one reason or another, ought not to be ploughed. There is no safeguard whatever against that, and that, I think, is a serious objection to the basis in the. Bill. Therefore, although I recognise the force of the argument that the smaller man will get less benefit on the production basis than on the acreage basis, I am convinced that the balance of national advantage is in the direction of what my noble friend proposes, and I therefore cordially support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF VERULAM: I should not have interfered in this matter had it not been that the Amendment exactly reproduces a point which has occurred in my own case. Only two days ago I received an

421
order from the local war agricultural committee to plough up a certain field or two on my estate, which fields are of a useless character, in my opinion, for corn growing. By this Clause 1 should receive no less than four times the amount of the difference, as stated in the Bill. Having some experience of agriculture, I have no hope of getting more than two or three quarters to the acre in any possible circumstances. Therefore, if the Bill stands as it is, I should receive at least one-third more than I ought to receive. If the Amendment of Lord Chaplin were passed, I should receive exactly the right amount. Therefore I shall support the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I support the Amendment on this ground. As the Bill stands, a man gets a bounty larger in proportion to the smaller amount that he grows. For instance, a man who grows three quarters to the acre gets exactly twice the bounty of a man who grows six quarters. That is very much the reverse of giving any premium or assistance in the direction of increasing the total output of wheat. There is another point which I think has not been raised—namely, that in no circumstances can the small farmer get any benefit under this bounty; so that the suggested reason for leaving the Bill in its present form does not operate at all in my opinion. The noble Duke will know that on July 17 of this year the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries issued a Paper showing the average cost per acre of growing wheat in 1917 on the basis of three and a-half quarters to the acre. I have the figures here. The larger figure—the figure which I think was adopted in the discussions in the other House—is £11 19 s. 2d. per acre. The figures vary, according to the calculations of various farmers on whose estimates these figures are based, down to £10 13 s. 8d. I will suppose that a small farmer grows his three and a-half quarters and gets his 45 s., or gets a figure made up to 45 s. He will only get from his wheat £7 17 s. 6d. per acre; but it is indicated in this Paper that the cost to the small farmer will be larger than these figures. It will be something more than £11 19 s. 2d., because these figures state that the average cost to the small farmer is larger than the average cost to the big farmer. What I ask is this, What inducement is there in this Bill to a man to grow wheat when, on an expenditure of £11 19 s. 2d., he will only receive £7 17 s. 6d.? I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount
422
said the other day, that so far as these minimum prices are an inducement to the growing of wheat they really have no operation at all. I should like to know what is the answer to the question I have put. I have quoted the actual figures from the Board of Agriculture Returns, and they show, as your Lordships will see, a loss of about £4 per acre. Of course, there is the straw and so on, but, as has been pointed out, if you are going to farm you must use that for manurial purposes. I want to ask the representative of the Government what inducement in these circumstances the minimum price gives. It is, of course, an inducement to the man who can grow six quarters per acre, because that gives him a fair profit. But there is no profit at all to the small man. You are merely inducing him to grow wheat under conditions which must result in a very heavy loss to him.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think that if this Bill had been introduced in ordinary times there would be a great deal to be said for the Amendment which the noble Viscount (Lord Chaplin) has moved. But unfortunately we are working under high pressure, and things are in a very abnormal state. The argument which weighs most with me, in hoping that the Government will not accept this Amendment, is the fact that we have the 3,000,000 acres scheme for the country at the present time. There is the proposition that 3,000,000 acres of grass are to be ploughed up and converted into arable land. I do not know how far that proposal is going to be pushed, but I feel perfectly certain that if it is pushed and many hundreds of thousands of acres are ploughed up there must be an enormous percentage of that land which will grow very small crops indeed. If this Amendment is accepted, undoubtedly the man who is growing crops on good land, which has always been highly cultivated, will benefit. And I think he should benefit. But when we have this scheme for ploughing up a large number of acres, we ought to consider all the facts. To my mind it is not a question of small or big farmers. We do not know whether they will be small or big farmers who will have to plough up the greatest amount of land in proportion. But I think there is sure to be a large amount of land scheduled for ploughing up which, when ploughed up, will not grow a half crop. Whether it is wise to plough that or not, it is not for

423
the country to decide. That is in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. But I know that Mr. Prothero goes a good deal more slowly in this respect than Sir Arthur Lee. I have had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with a good many letters and instructions sent out by both of them. Mr. Prothero is very doubtful as to what land should be ploughed up, on the one hand; but Sir Arthur Lee, on the other hand, is more confident and urges the agricultural committees to go ahead, and according to him the first essential for the farmer is to convert his grass land into arable. I think Lord Crewe stated, in the course of his speech, that he did not think that a farmer should be rewarded who ploughed up land unsuitable for growing wheat and thereby got any benefit which might be derived under this Bill. But that is not the point. It is not left to the prerogative or to the opinion of the farmer as to whether it will pay him to plough up a field. In fact, speaking for my own part of the country, the consensus of opinion among farmers is that they do not wish to break up an acre of land. But they will have to do it. Whether they will be compelled to plough up the 30,000 acres which are asked for in my county, I cannot say; but I am certain that they will have to plough up many thousands of acres, though all of the farmers are against it. How will that land be ploughed up? The war agricultural committee will command the farmers to do it, and it seems very unfair to those men that, if the land produces only one or one and a-half quarters to the acre, they should not receive the benefits afforded in this Bill. After all, the man who is farming good arable land never wanted assistance. I am bold enough to state that there are plenty of farmers in England who never knew agricultural depression; and I do not consider that the men to whom I have just referred require any assistance whatever. But I believe that the men who have been ordered by the war agricultural committees to plough up land from which they will get only a small crop are the people who require the assistance given by the Bill. It will not amount to very much. A man will have to plough up land which cannot pay him, and under the Bill he may possibly receive a week's wages for one man per acre. That is not very much, and I sincerely hope that the Government will keep the Bill as it is. In view of the fact that we are likely to have this demand for ploughing up an amount
424
of moderate grass land, I trust that these men to whom I have last referred will be considered before, the men who are farming rich arable land in the Fens and other favourable places.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am extremely sorry to find myself in disagreement with the views which have been expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, who is such a great authority on this and all other agricultural subjects. I admit that when this proposal to substitute acreage for the amount produced was first brought forward, I held very much the same views as Lord Chaplin has expressed this afternoon, but I have been converted to the principle of acreage for two main reasons. Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was first introduced the bonus on the minimum price was to be paid on the amount of corn sold. There was a general consensus of opinion in another place, and I believe that most of your Lordships will share that opinion, that in justice the bonus, if it is paid at all, should be paid, not on the amount that the farmer sells, but on the amount that he produces. That naturally raised the very difficult question of how, with any degree of accuracy and precision, you are to ascertain the actual amount of corn produced on any farm. I do not say that it is impossible to do so. Many proposals were put forward, but there were practical objections to all of them, and it was felt that if you were to judge it by the amount threshed there was the possibility of collusion on the part of the man who owned the corn and the man who threshed it. I understand that the proposal was that the bonus on corn produced was to be paid only on marketable corn. Under the proposal of the bonus being paid on the amount produced, there would be very great difficulty in precisely ascertaining and differentiating between the amount of the marketable corn and the amount of inferior or tail corn. That difficulty was so great, in the opinion of many people, as to be almost insuperable.
The other reason which has brought me round to the acreage system is this, and it is the view I have always taken, that to give your bonus on the amount produced was giving a great preference to those farmers who live in the Eastern Counties of England, and who, from the nature of the soil and climate, are able to produce a much

425
larger average over a aeries of years than those who live in the West and other parts of the country. In fact, it would be giving a preference to farmers in the Eastern counties at the expense of other farmers who are unable, through natural causes, to produce so much corn as they can. Lord Chaplin pointed out that you want to give a stimulus to the good farmer to produce more corn, and that he ought to receive a larger share of the bonus than the farmer who does not produce so much. It is not a question altogether of the good farmer and the indifferent farmer, because I venture to say that the good farmer in the part of the country in which I live would not be able, on an average, to produce anything like the same amount of corn from his land, owing to the nature of our soil and climate, as the farmer in the Eastern counties. It is not a question of rewarding the good farmer. It would be giving a larger bonus and an additional share of public money—if any public money is ever paid under this Bill—to those farmers who happen to live in certain districts. That, as I say, would be done at the expense of farmers who live in wetter parts of the country. I have taken the Agricultural Return for the year 1914, and I find that the fifteen counties in England which are included in the East and North-East divisions produced a larger quantity of wheat than was grown in the remaining thirty-five counties of England; they also produced one-third of the total amount of oats grown in England. Your Lordships will see from this that, if there was any public money going, the greater part of it would find its way into the pockets of the farmers who live in those fifteen Eastern and North-Eastern counties, at the expense of the farmers who live in the other counties.
I think that the basis of acreage is fairer all round. Perhaps I may be accused of taking rather a partial view because I happen to live in a part of the country where our average production of corn over a series of years does not come up to the average for England. But we must look at our own individual cases, though it would be fairer if we took the farmers all over the country. I think that all farmers ought to benefit as far as possible, and that the proposal in the Bill would be fairer all round. However, I do not think from a practical point of view that this is a very important consideration, because I am one
426
of those who are firmly convinced that as a matter of fact not one single penny of public money will ever be paid to the farmers under this Bill for the production of corn. Therefore this is rather an academic discussion as to what would be best in circumstances which I am strongly convinced will never arise.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I noticed that the noble Marquess who leads on the other side [the Opposition side] of the House told us that on the balance he, had come to the conclusion that he ought to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Chaplin. From that expression I conclude that he, like many others of us, must have been impressed by the weight of the arguments on both sides, and that it was not altogether without difficulty that he made up his mind to vote as he will presently vote. My position was much the same, but on the balance I have come to the other conclusion, and I am disposed to support the Bill as it now stands.
There is, of course, no doubt what the object is which we all have in view. As Lord Chaplin told your Lordships, this is a Bill the main object of which is to increase the production of corn. What, after all, is the most obvious way of obtaining an increased output of corn? Surely it is to induce as many people as you can to grow corn; and we must all of us be aware, as my noble friend Lord Ancaster told us a few moments ago, that there are an immense number of farmers who are extremely reluctant to try this experiment of wheat growing. Can you appeal to them in any other way than by rewarding them if they break up land and grow corn instead of the crops which they have hitherto produced? I know it is said that this clause is an inducement to careless cultivation, to "scratching" as it is generally put. I think it is quite conceivable. But the House will not forget that there is a subsection in this clause which makes it possible to exercise at any rate some amount of supervision over the manner in which the land is cultivated, and I presume that that subsection will be enforced in such a way as to prevent a man who really only makes believe to grow corn from getting any advantage.
The other arguments which weigh with me are based mainly upon the great difficulty of applying the test of production. I do not see how you could do it in the

427
case, for example, of the great number of small holdings which exist in Ireland, and which would have to be inspected for this purpose. On the whole, therefore, although I confess I am impressed by the weight of the arguments on the other side, I come to the conclusion that it would be better to leave the Bill as it now stands.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I should not venture to intrude upon this discussion, which has been conducted on both sides by noble Lords who speak with much more authority than I can pretend to do on the subject, but I think that I might, without discussing the merits of the controversy, be allowed to state the general reasons for which the Government are anxious to maintain this clause in its present form. It must be evident to any person who approaches the question impartially, as I claim to do myself, that there is a great deal of sound, I might say technical, argument on both sides. My own experience is this. Having at one time advocated the plan proposed by the noble Viscount opposite, which was the original scheme of the Bill, I have been converted by arguments such as we have heard from some noble Lords to-night to believe that the form in which the Bill now stands is the better one.
I think that we ought to be influenced somewhat by the history of the Bill. As originally proposed by the Government, it contained the provision for which the noble Viscount opposite now contends. He wants to restore the Bill to the shape which it bore when it entered the House of Commons, or practically to that shape. But it was in consequence of prolonged discussion in the House of Commons, and to meet arguments like those of the noble Earl who has spoken from the other side of the House carrying great weight, and to ensure practically general acceptance by that House, that the President of the Board of Agriculture, who originally made the very proposal which the noble Viscount makes, adopted the Bill in its present form. My right hon. friend is anxious to see it maintain its present form, and so are the Government. It might have been thought, from the extract which the noble Viscount read, that the President of the Board of Agriculture was strongly opposed to the Bill as it now stands, and that the eloquent passage quoted was in opposition to the present shape of the Bill. Nothing of the
428
kind. The passage which the noble Viscount read had nothing whatever to do with an Amendment bearing upon the point at present under discussion in this House. The words which Lord Chaplin read from Mr. Prothero were words directed against an Amendment which proposed that the payment of the guarantee should be confined to new production, to the amount added to production; and it was to that proposal, which has absolutely no relation to what we are now discussing, that the whole passage which the noble Viscount read to the House referred.
I am authorised to say, on behalf of the President of the Board of Agriculture, that, while recognising the great amount of argument which may justly be adduced on either side of this difficult case, he is anxious that the Bill in its present form should be adhered to. I would not have mentioned that but for the fact that nobody who listened to the speech of the noble Viscount could have had any other impression than that the Bill as it stands was, so to speak, forced upon the President of the Board of Agriculture contrary to his almost passionate convictions, when it is nothing of the kind. He came round with the rest of the Government to the view that, on the whole, the plan now contained in the Bill was rather a better scheme than that which they themselves originally proposed. That being the case, there being so much to be said on both sides, the matter having been so fully discussed in the House of Commons, and the Bill as it at present stands representing what was practically agreed to at the end of the discussions in another place, would it not be very undesirable that this House should now attempt to force the Government back to the original plan? I hope that the House will not insist on our taking that course, but will allow the Bill to stand in its present form, especially as I may once more briefly remind the House that there are in favour of this plan very strong considerations of simplicity of administration, economy of administration, and fairness both to the small man and to the man who makes special efforts under exceptional difficulties to meet the call upon him for greater production, or who, as the noble Earl opposite said, may be compelled against his will to cultivate land from which the yield will be smaller than it naturally would be from the highly-cultivated acres which are already devoted to wheat growing.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Perhaps I may be allowed a word or two in reply to the speeches which have been made in opposition to my proposal. What is it that we have heard? The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, frankly owned that in ordinary times there was very much to be said in favour of the Amendment. If there was much to be said in favour of the Amendment in ordinary times, I should have thought that the argument was ten times stronger when it is universally admitted that these are not ordinary times, because it is a matter of supreme and vital importance to increase wheat more than we are doing at present. The noble Earl seemed to think, in spite of all I tried to say to the contrary, that this was a question between farmers of different kinds. The position being that it is vital to us for the safety of the country to grow more corn than we do at present, he is advocating a system which, on his own showing, would assist farmers on that particular kind of land which he said himself he did not believe would produce more than one or one and a-half quarters per acre. I will not dwell more upon that point. He also told us that many farmers, in his recollection, had never suffered from agricultural depression. There may have been some in grass countries who, perhaps, suffered less than others did in arable. I assume that when he made that statement he did not refer to arable land. If he included arable country, then I should like to ask the noble Earl how many acres on his father's estate in Lincolnshire at the time of agricultural depression were in his own hands because no tenants could be obtained to take them over?
May I also say a word in reply to what fell from Lord Northbrook. What he said came to this. There were fifteen counties in England which grew as much corn as all the other thirty-five counties put together. Because that is the case he seems to think that, at a time when, as I say, our vital need is an immensely increased production of corn, the way to increase that production and to make it worthy of its name is to give all the advantage's to the thirty-five counties which grow less corn than the fifteen other counties. If that is the way to increase production, then of course I am wrong in moving my Amendment. But what does the noble Viscount opposite say to us? He thinks that I am entirely wrong, because Mr. Prothero's speech from which I quoted related to new production.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It related to a proposal to confine the benefits of the Bill to additional production, and to deprive farmers of any benefit of the guarantee if they did not grow more wheat than they grew before. He was contending for what the Bill itself does—giving the benefit of the guarantee for the whole amount produced. That is the Amendment on which Mr. Prothero was speaking.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am aware of all that; but I cannot see how it lessens my argument.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It makes your quotation quite irrelevant.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: On the contrary. This is a Corn Production Bill. It does not say whether it is to be new production, or old production increased by better farming I think the noble Viscount entirely overlooks that, There is the name of the Bill before you—it is for increased production. Although I frankly own that I have not read the whole of Mr. Prothero's speeches, I read enough to lead me to the conclusion that he appealed to the House in no circumstances to accept the Amendment. This does not in the least vitiate any of the arguments I used in favour of increased production, or the arguments which he used himself and which I quoted. To ride off on the difference between new production and old production does seem to me to be hardly worthy of the noble Viscount as a reply to that for which I have asked.
Then the noble Viscount's latest appeal is "economy of administration." Whence comes that appeal? It comes from a Government who have already created eleven new Ministries, and who are now engaged ill trying to create a twelfth, the Bill for which is, I believe, to be taken in hand again this evening. That appeal, I must confess, did not move me very much. Nor did the arguments with regard to difficulties of administration. I pointed out the other night that the difficulties of administration are really imaginary. My noble friend Lord Crewe pointed out, in one of the debates in this House upon this matter, that all the things that would have to be ascertained were regularly ascertained year after year without the slightest difficulty whenever there was a change of tenancy. That is my own experience too. I pointed out myself that under what was called the old Lincolnshire custom, whenever

431
there was a change of tenancy all these things were gone into and there was never the slightest difficulty about it; in Fact, so admirable did it work that there is no record of a dispute ever having come into Court. I have done my best to dispose of the objections which have been raised to the course that I propose. I feel so strongly upon this subject, and I am so convinced that I have behind me the support of the agricultural community outside this House that, though I do not in the least wish to delay your Lordships, I shall certainly carry my Amendment to a Division.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The noble Viscount has misinterpreted my argument, or perhaps I did not make it clear. I agree that this is a Corn Production Bill, and that its object is to produce more corn in the country. We now produce one-fifth, and we hope to produce two-fifths or three-fifths—some people are sanguine enough to hope that we may produce four-fifths—of our needs. But we cannot hope to produce that amount entirely in the Eastern and North-Eastern counties. With the best will in the world, it is physically impossible for the farmers in those parts of the country to do it. Therefore if we are to increase our corn production by the amount I have indicated we must look to greater production in the thirty-five other counties which are not so favourably circumstanced. My argument is that the acreage basis will give a greater incentive to those less favourably situated counties, and thereby increase the production of corn.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There was a statement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, which I think was incautiously made. It certainly suggested to me an entirely new interpretation of the Bill. He said that the object of the Bill was to give the benefit of the guaranteed price to the whole production of corn. I do not understand that this is so. I understand that the object of the Bill is to give a fixed sum measured in a particular way to each acre that produces corn.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I am afraid mine was a loose expression. What I meant to explain was this. A quotation was made by the noble Viscount from a speech of Mr. Prothero, which quotation appeared to be applicable to the subject we are discussing.
432
I was trying to point out that that quotation appears in Hansard in a speech of Mr. Prothero which dealt with an Amendment to confine the benefit of the guarantee to new or additional production as against the scheme of the Bill, which is, I think I am right in saying, to give the benefit of the guarantee to all acres producing particular crops. The proposal which Mr. Prothero was then combating was one to confine the benefit of the guarantee to additional production.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It was the ambiguous nature of the clause which led me to interpose. It is open to the interpretation that the payment is per quarter produced, and it was that payment which the noble Viscount incautiously supported in the observations he made. Clause 1 provides for a payment in respect of each acre of a sum measured per quarter. That is open to the interpretation that it is per quarter produced by the acre.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The payment is per acre on an assumed production.
LORD BUCKMASTER: As I understand it, that is not so at all. I am now glad that I interposed. What I understand the position to be is this, that if a man lays down an acre of land for the production of corn, then, whatever he, produces, whether he produces four quarters per acre or one quarter per acre, he will be paid only in respect of one quarter for each acre.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Four quarters.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then it is no longer a guarantee per acre; it is a guarantee per quarter.
VISCOUNT MILNER: No; a guarantee per acre.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think it is desirable to make this plain. My only reason for interposing was that I was struck by what appeared to be the ambiguity of the clause. There are two interpretations to which this clause is open. One is that if an acre of land is laid down for wheat and produces one quarter, the man will get a certain sum measured in a certain way; and if it produces four or five quarters, he will still get that same sum and no more.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, that is so.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then he is not paid per quarter produced by the acre, but he is paid on one quarter whether the acre produces five or one.
VISCOUNT MILLER: He is paid the same amount whatever it produces.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Minimum rate for agricultural wages.
4.—(1) Any person who employs a workman in agriculture shall pay wages to the workman at a rate not less than the minimum rate as fixed under this Act and applicable to the case, and if he fails to do so, shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a fine not exceeding one pound for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction therefor.
LORD BUCKMASTER: He is paid the same fixed sum whatever the acre produces?
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes.
On Question, whether the, words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Powis, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Selborne, E.

Digby, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Harris, E.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Herschell, L.

Churchill, V.

Hindlip, L.

Marlborough, D.

Cowdray, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Wellington, D.

Falmouth, V.

Islington, L.

Goschen, V.

Kenyon, E.

Camden, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Knaresborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Leverhulme, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Milner, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Peel, V.

Newton, E.

Albemarle, E.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Ancaster, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Pontypridd, L.

Camperdown, E.

Ranksborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buceleueh and Queensberry.)

Avebury, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Blythswood, L.

Saltoun, L.

Eldon, E.

Boston, L.

Sandys, L.

Howe, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Somerleyton, E.

Kimberley, E.

Carmichael, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Charming of Wellingborough, L.

Treowen, L.

Northbrook, E.

Charnwood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Somerset, D.

Verulam, E. [Teller.]

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lambourne, E.

Crewe, M.

Chaplin, V. [Teller.]

Leconfield, L.

Harcourt, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Abingdon, E.

Monckton, L. (V. Gahray.)

Devon, E.

Anslow, L.

Parmoor, E.

Manvers, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Southwark, L.

Morton, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Plymouth, E.

Desborough, L.

Temple, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

(2) On the conviction of an employer under this section the court may by the conviction adjudge or order the employer convicted to pay in addition to any fine such sum as appears to the court to be due to the workman employed on account of wages, the wages being calculated at the minimum rate; but the power to order the payment of wages under this provision shall not be in derogation of any right of the workman to recover wages by any other proceedings.
(3) Any agreement for the payment of wages in contravention of this section, or for abstaining to exercise any right of enforcing the payment of wages in accordance with this section shall be void.
(4) The provisions of this section as to payment of wages at a minimum rate shall operate as respects able-bodied men as from the commencement of this Act (although a minimum rate of wages may not have been fixed), so as to enable

435
any sum which would have been payable under this section to an able bodied man on account of wages for time-work if a minimum rate for able-bodied men had been fixed to be recovered by the workman from his employer at any time not exceeding three months after the rate is fixed:
Provided that no sum shall be recoverable under this provision if the wages paid have, in the opinion of the court, been equivalent to wages for an ordinary day's work at the rate of twenty-live shillings a week.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out from subsection (1) all words after "and if he fails to do so, "and to insert" the difference between the amount paid by the employer and the amount of wages due to the workman calculated at the minimum rate shall be recoverable by the workman at his option in the county court or a court of summary jurisdiction." The noble Lord said: The object of my Amendment is to mitigate the very severe penalties which are proposed to be imposed upon those who, either wittingly or unwittingly, may evade the giving of the proper wage due to a workman under his special category.
As the provision stands in the Bill, the only way to find out what is a proper wage to give under a special category is to take criminal proceedings against the unfortunate farmer or the unfortunate employer of labour. As the Bill now stands, you issue a summons or a warrant very much in the same way as you would in the case of a burglar or a murderer, and the unfortunate employer of labour, who may have employed a person out of charity not knowing what was the exact wage due to the man until afterwards, is to be proceeded against criminally, as if he were, as I say, either a murderer or a burglar. If my Amendment is adopted, the clause would run, "… and if he fails to do so, the difference between the amount paid by the employer and the amount of wages due to the workman calculated at the minimum rate shall be recoverable by the workman at his option in the County Court or a Court of summary jurisdiction." The workman, if he thought he had not received the proper amount of wages, would then take civil proceedings, and the case would be fought out in that way instead of under criminal procedure.
There is a great deal of difference of opinion, even in the minds of leading legal lights, as to the various categories of wages which arise. Under the Bill there are the difficulties connected with piece work, with time work, with able-bodied men, and
436
also with "workmen," in which term are included men, women, and children. Then there are the difficulties in certain categories with regard to the minimum wage, and considerable difficulties connected with the permit. The wages that may be paid under these different headings are not very simple to arrive at; and as I have been told by legal gentlemen that the proceedings to be taken against the employer are in the nature of criminal proceedings, I do think that is very hard. Even if one is acquitted, there is a great deal of disgrace and discredit in being had up before a Court. Besides, the local Press always give more prominence to cases of this kind than they do to civil cases.
I should also like to point out the difficulties which exist in agriculture with regard to classification of employment. They differ even on fine days and wet days. What I mean is that a man is a carter on one day, but on a wet day he may be a carpenter or something of that sort; and you cannot know with any certainty, in connection with the wages for piece work or time work, under what category this man is coming. If this clause is going to remain as it now stands in the Bill, I venture to think that the best advice to give to a would-be employer of labour is not to employ the man, woman, or child until he is sure under what category they are likely to come. Because if you make a mistake, some fine day a policeman may appear with a warrant, and you will have to explain your position, with all the odium that attaches to a criminal prosecution.
There is one appeal which I should like to make to the Board of Agriculture. I am aware that certain alterations are likely to be made in the Bill during its progress through Committee. But when the clue is found to the maze of these wages clauses, I should like to impress upon the Board the necessity of sending round to the 200,000 farmers and others who may be employers of labour under this Bill a circular explaining exactly what they can do and what they cannot do before they are subjected to this criminal prosecution. Let a definition be given to piece work, time work, minimum wage, and so on, also with regard to "workmen" and able-bodied men, and the matter of the permits. Let it be done by a leaflet sent round to all tenant farmers who are likely to employ agricultural labourers.
It may be objected that the poor workman will have neither the time nor the money to go into a civil Court. But I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the workman need do nothing of the sort. His interests are going to be protected by special people, because it is the duty of the Agricultural Wages Board to bring to the notice of the persons affected the minimum rates of wages, and no doubt officials will be appointed to visit the various districts and inform the workmen of their position under the Bill. These officials are to be appointed, and their duty will be to go round and find out what they can, and if there is a case arising under the, Bill they can take proceedings on behalf of the workman if they think fit. It will not cost the workman anything if he takes his employer into a civil Court. There will no doubt be an enormous number of prosecutions all over the country, as these officials will be anxious to find plenty of work to do. The workman has plenty of friends in and out of Court. Therefore, I submit that this criminal prosecution of people who, like myself, may not be able fully and immediately to understand all these difficult points, especially where they overlap each other, and who are dealing with various classes of labourer, is not right. To serve the employer with a warrant or a summons to appear before, a Court of summary jurisdiction to explain his position, and to subject him to a fine not exceeding £20 and to a fine not exceeding £1 a day for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction, is not a very amicable way of deciding these difficulties, and I hope that the Board of Agriculture will find a more amiable way of settling the conundrums under their own Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out from ("so") to end of sub-section (2) and insert ("the difference between the amount paid by the employer and the amount of wages due to the workman, calculated at the minimum rate shall be recoverable by the workman at his option in the county court or a court of summary jurisdiction").—(Lord Desborough.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I hope that His Majesty's Government will not accept the Amendment of my noble friend who has just spoken. He suggested that the object of his Amendment was to mitigate the penalties imposed. As a fact, if
438
abolishes all penalties in the Bill. I do not think it is desirable to remove the penalties which have been put into this clause. If there are no penalties for disobeying the instructions of the Act, there will be a temptation to certain employers not to pay the minimum wage, and to take their chance, if the difference is a small one, that it may not be worth the while of the employee to take them to a Court in order to recover that small amount. My noble friend talks of the employers as being treated as though they were burglars and murderers. It is a new reading of the Criminal Law that a burglar or murderer can get off with a maximum tine of £20.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I said they were treated in the same way by being proceeded against by summons or warrant.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I think that if it appeared in Court that there had been an accidental misunderstanding as to what was the amount required to make up the man's wage to the minimum under the law, no fine would be imposed, or possibly a nominal fine of a penny or a farthing, if it were necessary to impose one at all. But I consider that the mere existence of a penalty will save us from a large number of cases being brought into Court, and it will be an inducement to all employers, on the passage of the Bill, to bring the wages of the labourer up to the true minimum.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: In venturing to address your Lordships, I would claim the indulgence which the House invariably gives to one who addresses it for the first time. I desire to say a word in support of the Amendment. It seems to me that it is very far from the object of the Government to penalise or to stop the employment of men who are not able-bodied, and the number of these men working now on farms is very great and is increasing daily. It should be our object, as far as possible, not to hinder the employment of such men, but to render their employment more easy. As I understand it, the object of this Amendment is to prevent these men being debarred from the labour market by reason of the extreme penalty put on the farmer if he employs them and pays them, in ignorance or by pure mistake, a wrong sum. I therefore hope that this Amendment will be accepted by His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I cannot agree with my noble friend. I fail to see any difference between the case of a man brought up under this clause and the case of a man brought up for selling adulterated milk. If a dairyman is caught by the county council having adulterated his milk, he is fined. Perhaps the noble Duke will enlighten us as to why we get the expression "able-bodied man" so often. What is an able-bodied man? How can you classify him? And are we going to have the same thing that I have experienced for the past eighteen months sitting on an Appeal Tribunal, with solicitors trying to persuade the Tribunal that a man who has been examined is not really Class A but Class C and ought not to be sent to be a soldier. Are we now going to have another Tribunal where just the reverse will take place—namely, a solicitor trying to persuade the Tribunal that the man is really Class A? For we may rest assured that labourers will have to be classified, as men are now classified for the Army. I speak with absolute knowledge when I say that there are hundreds of young men in my county who have been rejected for the Army on account of some defect, say varicose veins, which prevents them from doing more than a certain amount of work on a farm. They will have to be examined. But how is it going to be done? It is most important to define exactly what is an able-bodied man. Am I an able-bodied man? I am nearly 69, and of course I cannot do what I did forty years ago. Am I to have the same wages as a young man employed on a farm? The decision of what is really an able-bodied man is one of the most difficult things to arrive at. Every man who is an agricultural labourer belongs to the National Health Insurance, and has a panel doctor told off to look after him by law. That doctor has to certify whether the man is ill or not; and if he is ill, and lives within two miles of a chemist who is on the panel, he can have what medicine is necessary. Has he to go to his panel doctor under this Bill and say to him, "Give me a certificate that I am able-bodied?" If so, it will throw a great deal more on the panel doctor. But if he is not to go to the panel doctor, to whom is he to go?
LORD HARRIS: When the noble Duke replies, will he kindly explain to the House the true meaning of the words "and applicable to the case "? I have no doubt
440
that they are important, because a workman may be an old woman, or rather an old woman may be a workman, and she is entitled, according to the commencement of this clause, to 25 s., and if the employer does not pay her 25 s. he is liable to be sued. But it may be affected by the words "and applicable to the case." I hope the noble Duke will explain their meaning. I presume that a summary conviction may be before a single magistrate, though the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—it may be taken in the room of the clerk of the Court. It would be as well if we understood quite clearly whether this provision that 25 s. must be paid to a workman would apply to an old woman who ordinarily could not earn more than 10 s. I should also like to ask the noble Duke what is the real reason for shifting the descriptive term in the course of the clause from "workman" to "able-bodied man." At the commencement of the clause it is "workman "; in the later parts it is "able-bodied man."
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: In answer to the question put to me by Lord Harris, "workman" includes men, women, and children.
LORD HARRIS: I asked why the change is made in the course of the clause.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The penalties are different in the clause itself. The penalties in subsections (1) and (2) are not the same as the penalties in subsection (4). In reply to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, I am sorry to tell him that it is impossible for the Government to accept it. He seems to imagine that this clause has been drawn with some sort of vindictive desire to inflict an unnecessary injury upon the employer. That is not at all the intention of the framers of the Bill. The intention is exactly that which has been pointed out by Lord Harcourt—namely, that if there were no penalty put in the Bill against the employer, the danger would be that the employer would deliberately pay a wage to the workman less than the minimum wage, and would take his chance of being found out and made to pay the difference. It is in order to ensure that the employer shall pay the minimum wage when one is fixed that the penalty has been put in, and for no other reason. I hope the noble Lord will reconsider his position with regard to the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: May I be allowed to make a suggestion to the noble Duke upon this point? I can understand the reasons fur retaining the penalty clause in certain circumstances, but would the noble Duke allow a word to be introduced to show that it applies only in the case of any one who knowingly employs a person in agriculture at less than the minimum rate? These difficulties with regard to what is an able-bodied man, and matters of that kind, are extremely complex. A farmer or employer may be wholly innocent, and may act under a misapprehension; yet be liable on conviction to a penalty. It is not a pleasant position in which to place any employer if he is convicted under a clause of this nature. Possibly the noble Duke might accept the words "any person who knowingly employs a workman," or he might add these words "rate as fixed under this Act and applicable to the case, and if he fails to do so, and is proved to have knowledge that the rate is less than the minimum so fixed…" I think it would be very hard that under a mere misapprehension the conviction should be enforced.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would endorse the plea that the Government should very carefully consider the words of this clause. I do not go so far as my noble friend Lord Desborough in thinking that no penalty is required. I am quite sure there would be deliberate cases of men who meant to pay the labourer less than that which they knew to be the labourer's legal right. A penalty is certainly required to meet such cases. But I wish to endorse with all my power one plea of Lord Desborough. I would like to ask Lord Milner to give us a pledge from the Government that the Board of Agriculture will send round a circular, couched in intelligible language, to every farmer in the country explaining what his obligations may be under this Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: They will not read it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend Lord Kimberley says that the farmers will not read it. Your Lordships may know how few of the circulars the farmer does read. But he cannot complain of an injustice if a circular is sent to him explaining the position and he refuses to read it; whereas if no such circular is sent
442
he may very well complain that he has been hardly treated. There is another interest to be considered besides that of the farmer—namely, the interest of the old labourer, of whom my noble friend behind me spoke. There is a real danger, if the words of this clause strike the imagination of the farmers too drastically, lest in the interval before the minimum wages are fixed they should turn off all the men who do not come up to the full standard. No more cruel hardship than that could be inflicted on the old or the infirm labourer, and no greater injury could be done to agriculture. Therefore, while I do not support the contention that there should be no penalty at all, I do ask the Government to look into this clause very carefully.
THE EARL OF MEATH: Ireland is included in this Bill, and I want to support most earnestly the words that have been spoken by my noble friend Lord Selborne. I am sure there are many of your Lordships who do as I do—I give a pension to every labourer in my employment. Now what am I to do unless it is clearly laid down that this Bill does not and will not apply to any but able-bodied men? If there is any doubt about it, I am afraid that a good many Irish landlords who follow my example, or at all events are doing the same thing, may be tempted to get rid of those men who are not able-bodied and who are really being kept out of charity. I am sure the Bill does not intend to apply to these men. But for goodness sake let us have something in clear and definite language which everybody, every Irishman, can understand. I think this is a very serious matter, and it is one which I hope will be thoroughly explained by His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I think the remark made by the noble Duke in answer to Lord Harris should be a little more clearly explained. I understood the noble Duke to say that a woman, young or old, came within the word "workman." At the beginning of Clause 4 it says, "Any person who employs a workman in agriculture shall pay wages to the workman at a rate not less than the minimum rate as fixed under this Act." And at the end of the clause it says, "Provided that no sum shall be recoverable under this provision if the wages paid have, in the opinion of the Court, been equivalent to

443
wages for an ordinary day's work at the rate of 25 s. a week." So that, according to this clause, it, seems to me the minimum wage is clearly to be at 25 s., and will have to be paid to every old woman and old man on the estate.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: The noble Duke said clearly that "workman" means every old woman and man employed on the estate. I suggest that the Government should revise it, because it is liable to great misapprehension and misconstruction all over the country.
LORD LAMBOURNE: I should like to endorse what Lord Selborne has said with regard to the total abrogation of the penalty. I think it would be impossible to do away with the penalty altogether, because there are undoubtedly bad farmers as well as good fanners, and some who would try to escape from the penalty. But I am anxious, with him, that the farmer should be made absolutely certain as to what the law is. At present every farmer complains of the multitude of Orders made by the Departments, thereby rendering it almost impossible for him to comply with the law even if he were anxious to do so. I confess I was also rather perturbed by the idea of all the old ladies employed at present on estates being liable to be paid at the rate of 25 s. a head, but I presume there is some misunderstanding on that point. I do not myself feel that there is any chance of the labourers who are not absolutely able-bodied being discharged. At the present time there is such a dearth of labour that I think anybody would be sorry to discharge a single person who is likely to be able to do an efficient day's work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been asked by Lord Milner to say that steps will be taken to inform the farmers fully as to the provisions of the Bill so far as they are affected by it. It is highly important that they should be so informed. I am instructed to say that this will be done. I cannot say, however, that I am favourably impressed with the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, that we should go a step further and insert the word "knowingly" in the clause. It might be extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that the thing
444
which was contrary to the law had been done knowingly. But if steps are taken to inform all concerned of what the provisions of the law are, I think they cannot then complain if they omit to make themselves acquainted with the provisions.
Two questions were asked by Lord Harris to which I might, perhaps, say a supplementary word in reply. He asked what the words "applicable to the case" meant near the beginning of the clause. They mean this. There is power in the Bill, as my noble friend will see in Clause 5, to fix different rates for different classes of workmen. The rate of 25 s. applies only to able-bodied men. It is not to be less than that in the case of able-bodied men. But it does not apply to boys and it does not apply to women, and particularly it does not apply to the old women of whom my noble friend spoke. So that the words are necessarily there. The Bill is infringed only if the rate applicable to a workman of a particular class is not paid. The noble Lord also asked why the term in subsection (4) of Clause: to was changed to "able-bodied men" instead of "workmen" as in the first subsection. The reason is this. We are dealing there with the case of persons to whom the rate of 25 s. is applicable, and we provide that in that case, and in that case only, the rate to be paid as from the time of the passing of the Act is 25 s., which is the minimum for an able-bodied man.
LORD HARRIS: Until the minimum is fixed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. After the minimum is fixed, the employer would be liable to pay the minimum as fixed. He is to be liable up to 25 s., and if he has paid, say, 24 s., he will be then liable, under the clause as it is proposed to be amended, for the 1s. deficiency.
With regard to the proposal which forms the subject of the Amendment before the Committee, a great deal has been said about these being criminal proceedings. We are very familiar with a number of proceedings which are criminal in name only. All sorts of Acts have been passed dealing with procedure of this kind. It is absolutely necessary, if the Act is not to remain a dead letter, that there should be a liability to some penalty if the Act is infringed. But these are not proceedings of the same nature as those which are taken against

445
burglars and murderers. Technically speaking, they may be criminal for the purposes of the rules in Jaw relating to appeals; but no one, would speak of a person who was convicted for, say, not building in conformity with the regulations of a county council as a criminal; yet the proceedings would be of the same nature as those that are taken here.
If it were an honest mistake as to what the law was, of coarse the Tribunal ought to take that into account; and, as one noble Lord said, a nominal penalty would meet such a case. But, after all, the overwhelming argument, as has been pointed out by Lord Selborne and other noble Lords who have spoken, in favour of having some penalty is this, that without it there would be very great danger that the Act would remain a dead letter. It may be different in other trades; but with agricultural labourers, if it were left to bring actions, many employers might think it worth their while to go on paying at the old rates and, having regard to the provisions of the Act, to trust to the improbability of civil proceedings being taken against them. I am told by those who have looked into this matter that it is essential that the liability to a penalty should continue to exist. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not disturb the Bill as it is drawn in this particular.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I share the opinion of other noble Lords, after hearing this discussion, that there ought to be a penalty of some kind, but I would press upon the Government that they should reconsider their decision in respect of my noble friend Lord Parmoor's suggestion. I am not going to pin myself, nor to ask your Lordships to pin the Government, to any precise words at this moment, but the person we want to get at is the farmer who "knowingly" refuses to pay his labourers what the law says they are to have. If that is the intention of Parliament, why should you not say what; you mean?. That is the first argument. The second argument is this. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, says that you must have some deterrent power. That is true. But supposing the words of the Bill were to the effect that a man would be punished if he "knowingly" broke the law, surely that would be a deterrent. I venture to differ
446
from my noble and learned friend. A farmer is not a very subtle-minded person, and he would recognise at once that he was running a great risk if he played last and loose with this Bill. If the word "knowingly" or its equivalent were in it, the Bill would be sufficiently deterrent.
Lastly, I would suggest to the Lord Chancellor that he has very much underrated the effect of the Bill as it now stands on the mind of the farmer. The noble and learned Lord says that this is a criminal prosecution only in name. But I can assure him that people who live in the country do not like being put into the dock, and they will not run the risk of it. And there is great danger that the first thing a farmer will do, when He sees these drastic provisions, will be to get rid of the men who run him into this great risk. There is really great danger of that. What we ask the Government to do is to reconsider the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, not necessarily to put the word "knowingly" in but some word to that effect, which really would correspond to the intention of Parliament and reassure the farming community throughout the country.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot say that I like Lord Desborough's Amendment. I think there are many reasons which have been urged why it should not be assented to. But I would far rather have it than the Amendment suggested by Lord Parmoor. In effect, the noble and learned Lord's Amendment is to secure by a side blow what the Amendment of Lord Desborough will fail to effect by a frontal attack. If you throw upon the prosecution, in cases such as those which will arise under this Statute, the burden of proving knowledge on the part of any person who is summoned, the prosecution will fail in nearly every case. It is almost impossible to prove it. You would not prove knowledge by merely proving that you had sent a notice from the Board of Agriculture, not even if it happened, by some rare accident, to be couched in plain and intelligible language. You could not establish knowledge except by the most difficult and laborious process. I would far rather the clause were dealt with straightforwardly and drastically than apparently giving a workman protection by the clause but in reality taking it away.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not agree with either of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken with regard to the difficulty of proof. I have often sat as a magistrate, and it is the commonest thing possible to have to consider whether a person charged with an offence knew that he was committing an offence at the time. As a rule, a man is supposed to know the law. That is the principle adopted in this country, though it is one which may have far-reaching effects. If a man were brought up under a section of this kind, even with the word I have suggested, it would he assumed prima facie that he did know what the obligations were which the law had placed upon him. What would really happen would be this. His defence would be. "This matter was never brought to my knowledge. It is a misapprehension. Therefore I ought not to be subjected to what, after all, is a criminal line or penalty." But if there is any doubt about that, put in such words as "unless he can prove that he had no knowledge." I believe that is how the clause would operate with my word put in, as I suggested, though one wants, of course, to consider these things carefully. At any rate, this might be admitted, that if the farmer is being prosecuted under a criminal clause of this kind and he can show that he has been acting under a misapprehension with regard to these complicated matters of women, able-bodied men, and all the rest of it—if he can prove to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he has acted under a misapprehension through not knowing these complicated matters thoroughly, he ought to be acquitted. I put that forward, because my intention was not that the man should escape.
LORD HINDLIP: I may be stupid, but I do not understand the word "workman" in Clause 4. In the first line the word "workman" is used, and the noble and learned Lord told us just now that it did not include women. In Clause 16 your Lordships will find, at line 35, "the expression "workman" includes boys, women, and girls." Then on page 6, line 10, it says "the expression "able-bodied man" means any male workman." Lord Harris asked why the word "workman" at the beginning of Clause 4 had been changed later on to "able-bodied man." It seems to me that there is a chance of a great deal of trouble arising over the meaning of "workman" in the first line and "able-bodied man" later on. Will the noble and
448
learned Lord tell us what, the meaning of the word "workman" in the first him of the Clause really is?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to what my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor has said, I think the objections to the introduction of the adverb "knowingly" are insuperable, and for the reasons which my noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Buckmaster) has stated. I understood Lord Parmoor to say that he thought of framing it in a different way—providing, as I understood him, that if the employer pleaded that he had acted in ignorance and that there had been no negligence, that might be a defence.
LORD PARMOOR: If he could prove that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I can say is that if my noble and learned, friend will frame a clause showing clearly what it is he means, we will consider it before the next stage of the Bill. I cannot say more than that, because it would require careful consideration. The whole policy of the working of the Bill—whether it is to be effective or to be more or less a dead letter—would have to be considered before consenting to any change.
In reply to the question just put by my noble friend Lord Hindlip, the term "workman" is not confined to able-bodied men. It includes all classes of workmen, workwomen falling under that description. It also includes boys and all people who work. The provision in subsection (4) of Clause 4 is one which relates to able-bodied men only, because to them alone does the provision about the 25 s. minimum apply.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his kind undertaking to acquiesce in the suggestion I made to him—namely, that the provisions of this Bill with regard to wages, the different categories of men, women, children, able-bodied men, permits, rates of wages, and so on, should be, if possible, put into a leaflet and distributed to all employers of labour. I am very grateful that this suggestion has been adopted by the Government. As to the methods of proceeding under this Bill, I am not in the least converted to the idea that they do not involve a certain amount of disgrace on those who are prosecuted in these difficult circumstances. I am glad to think that

449
the noble and learned Lord holds out some hope that there may be an alteration at a later stage of the Bill with regard to the criminal nature of the prosecution. I should like to say that if this is not done, I shall raise the matter again at some ether convenient stage. I think sufficient has been said about the term "workmen." It has nothing to do with my Amendment, which dealt only with the method of prosecution. The various points raised by noble Lords show that there is great difficulty in understanding all the provisions of the Bill. Why, therefore, should a farmer who may employ a great deal of labour out of charity be hauled up because he did not understand the procedure under the Bill? I still think that my objections to these criminal proceedings are very substantial; but as the noble and learned Lord has said that he will propose an Amendment later on dealing with the matter, I shall not press my Amendment to a Division, as I otherwise should have done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The next Amendment, standing in my name, is purely verbal.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, after ("fixed") insert ("but only").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I move to leave out from the proviso at the end of Clause 4 the words "if the wages paid have," and to insert "except in a case in which and to the extent to which the wages paid have not." As your Lordships will remember, the Lord Chancellor has just pointed out, with regard to subsection (4), that if an able-bodied man receives only 24 s. a week—that is to say, 1s. less than the minimum wage—and the minimum was fixed subsequently to 27 s. or 30 s., he could sue for the difference. The words which I propose to put in have this effect, that if a man pays less than 25 s. during the intermediate period he can be sued only for the difference between what he has paid and 25 s. Your Lordships will observe that that benefits the employer to a certain extent.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, leave out (" if the wages paid have ") and insert (" except in a case in which and to the extent to which the wages paid have not ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: I think this is a matter to which I drew the noble Duke's attention.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Yes; and I think I have met the noble Lord upon it.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Yes, you have.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I move to insert the new clause standing in my name on the Paper. Some of your Lordships may have observed that this Amendment is not the same Amendment as that which was circulated to your Lordships' House yesterday. I will explain presently why the form of it has been changed, but I should like to say at the outset that the substance of it is the same as that of the Amendment which I put on the Paper yesterday. My Amendment deals with the very important question of the conditions in which men who are not able-bodied can be employed under this Bill. The. Bill primarily deals with able-bodied men. You have only to read the language of subsection (4) of Clause 4, and again subsection (6) of Clause 5, to see that it is the case of the able-bodied men which governs the whole of the procedure under this part of the Bill. In this Amendment I propose to deal with the employment of the non-able-bodied man, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is quite impossible to fix rates of wages for men who are not able-bodied in anything like a wholesale fashion. You can do it for individuals, but it is quite impossible, I think, to grade them according to the degree of their inefficiency. You cannot say "this man is a man of first-class inefficiency"; "this man is a man of second-class inefficiency"; and so on. And not only does the inefficiency vary as between one man and another, but the same man may be more efficient at one time or in one year than at another.
As to the policy to be observed with regard to those who are not able-bodied, I do not think there is any difference of opinion

451
whatever amongst us. One speaker after another has dwelt upon the necessity of putting no needless obstacles in the way of the employment of these people, who may, though inefficient, be extremely deserving. I think it was the Prime Minister who said that the unkindest thing that you could possibly do for the man who was ill or infirm was to saddle him with a minimum rate of wages of, say, 25 s. The only result would be that that man would not get employment at all. Now some of us venture to think that the Bill does not set to work in the right way when dealing with these non able-bodied people. Under the Bill, your Lordships will remember, the man is expected to present himself before a Board or a Committee, and to obtain from that body a permit to take work at less than the full minimum rate. He has to get a kind of personal dispensation. I venture to think that in the interests of all concerned it is far from desirable that before a man can come to terms with his employer, or get work, he should be compelled to go and get from a public body of this kind a certificate of inefficiency. Upon what evidence would the certificate be given? Would medical evidence have to be given on one side, and then perhaps on the other? There might be infinite delay, trouble, and vexation.
The suggestion which I venture to make, to your Lordships is that you should deal rather differently with the problem. What I propose is that when the man and his employer are able to come to terms upon the basis of admitted inefficiency on the part of the man, the two should be able to make their contract—but subject to certain conditions; because it is most important that we should do nothing to encourage what would be regarded as "contracting out" of the Bill, and that everything should be above board and done in the full light of day. What is suggested in this Amendment? That in all cases of this kind the employer should be obliged to notify the District Wages Committee that he has employed a particular man at a particular rate of wages. The District Committee may thereafter, if it chooses, intervene on the ground that the rate of wages allowed is not a proper or sufficient rate, and may vary the terms of the contract, and may do so retrospectively within certain limits of time. I venture to think that this is an ample safeguard against anything that could be described as an evasion of the Act by the parties.
452
On the other hand, there may be, no doubt, some cases in which the man himself very much prefers to go to the Committee and obtain a permit. That would probably be the case with a certain number of casual labourers who, knowing that they are inefficient, knowing that they would not be able to claim full rates of wages, move about the country ready to take a job on certain terms. Such a man may be very glad to carry about in his pocket a certificate which will relieve the employer of all doubt or uncertainty as to the propriety of the arrangement. I said just now that the Amendment had been considerably altered. I have altered it at the suggestion of His Majesty's Government, who were good enough not to disapprove of the principle of my proposal, but suggested to me that it would be better expressed as now on the Paper than it was in its original form.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert as a new clause:
" Special provisions as to non able-bodied workman.
".—(1) Where a person employs a workman, not being an able-bodied workman, in agriculture on time work at a rate less than that which would have been payable had he been an able-bodied workman, that person shall, within fourteen days of the date hereinafter mentioned, send to the district wages committee a statement in the prescribed form signed by or on behalf of himself and the workman, containing particulars as to the wages agreed to be paid, and the circumstances which render the workman not an able-bodied workman; and such other particulars as may be prescribed; and that committee may, if they think fit, increase the rate of wages payable under the contract, and thereupon the contract shall have effect as from the date hereinafter mentioned as so varied: Provided that this provision shall not apply in any case where the wages paid are in accordance with a certificate granted by a district wages committee under this section.
If the employer fails to send such a notice as aforesaid or to pay wages at the rate fixed by the committee, he shall be liable to the like penalties as if the workman had been an able-bodied workman.
The date here in before referred to is the date of the commencement of the contract or of the fixing of the minimum time rate for able-bodied workmen in the district, whichever is the later.
(2) If a district wages committee are satisfied that any workman employed or desiring to be employed on time work is not an able-bodied workman, the committee may grant to the workman, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed by the committee a certificate to that effect and applying to the workman the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act for able-bodied workmen, subject to such reduction as may be specified in the certificate; and whilst such a certificate is in force this Act shall apply as if the minimum rate subject to such reduction as aforesaid were applicable to him."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
LORD PARMOOR: There is a subsequent Amendment for the omission of the terms as they stand on this point in the Bill. I do not wish to say anything in addition to what the noble Marquess has said, but the combined effect of his Amendment and mine would be to take the place of what is now in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I ask the noble Marquess to explain to me the lines in his Amendment, "The Committee may grant to the workman, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed by the Committee, a certificate to that effect, and applying to the workman the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act for able-bodied workmen." Why should it not be the rate of wages fixed in the certificates?
THE MARQUESS OP LANSDOWNE: I do not think my noble friend has read the words of the subsection with sufficient care. The certificate may apply to the workman the minimum rate of wages fixed under this Act for able-bodied workmen, subject to such reduction as may be specified in the certificate. That is what the Amendment says.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Perhaps I ought to say, in the absence of Lord Milner, who is in charge of the Bill, that I am not quite certain whether the noble Marquess correctly described the situation by saying that the Government accept the Amendment; in other words, that they pledge themselves to introduce it. My recollection is that in the discussions that preceded the Committee stage of the Bill we thought there was great force in the argument of the noble Marquess, but we felt that his Amendment might be improved in the direction which we suggested, and which he was kind enough to accept; and we were willing to let the Amendment pass this House with a view to its being considered in the House of Commons. But I do not quite like the phrase that the Government accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I trust that we may put upon what has fallen from the Lord President the construction that His Majesty's Government will put forward the Amendment in another place, with the desire of pressing it for the acceptance of that House, not, as I understand him to say, that they adopt it as an integral part
454
of the Bill that they are prepared to see through, but that they will regard it with a favourable eye, and that the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture will be prepared to support it. I merely desire to say that it appears to me to be a most valuable addition to the Bill, and, in fact, to remove what would have been in effect a very serious blot upon the measure, as it would have inflicted a great deal of hardship upon a large number of well-deserving old labourers.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I quite accept what the noble Marquees has said in commentary upon my remarks. He has correctly described the attitude which His Majesty's Government will adopt in another place.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very glad to hear that, because I entirely associate myself with the remarks of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. The scheme of this Amendment scheme to me to be as admirable as the scheme for dealing with this particular though vital point was to my mind ineffective. If the noble? Earl who leads the House wishes to appreciate the difference in our minds, he will remember, as we read the original Bill, a permit to employ an infirm or aged labourer had in each case to be obtained from London, which to our minds was a wholly impracticable suggestion. I would ask the Lord Chancellor to look at the first line of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, "Where a person employs a workman, not being an able-bodied work-man." Ought not the words to be added "nor a woman, nor a boy," because "workman" includes a woman or a boy?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will consider the point. But I rather understood that it was intended to apply to women and boys as well.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I hope it will be considered to apply to them at a nominal rate, and not 25 s.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I thought this method of application was to apply to all those who were not earning full wages.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I understand that the noble Marquess meant it to apply to infirm and aged workmen, and not to boys. Of course, it certainly ought

455
to apply to old women. But at, the present moment we have a great many women working on some of the farms who are certainly very able-bodied.
LORD HARRIS: What is the object of a new description? We first had "workmen." Then we had "able-bodied men." Now we have "able-bodied women," What is the object of having three descriptions?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "Able-bodied workmen" would include the women.
LORD HARRIS: So does "workmen."
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I suggest that if the word "worker" was substituted for "workman" it would be more reasonable.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I certainly understood that the word "workman" in the clause which I have just moved was to be interpreted with reference to the definition in Clause 16 of the Bill, which says "for the purposes of this Act the expression ' workmen ' includes boys, women, and girls."
LORD PARMOOR: That must be so.
LORD HARRIS: And, I take it, to any description of physical capacity?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes.
LORD HARRIS: Then why "able-bodied "?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Establishment of Wages Board.
5.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall, as soon as may be and after consultation with the Minister of Labour, establish an Agricultural Wages Board; and such of the provisions of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, as are set out (with modifications) in the First Schedule to this Act shall be deemed to be incorporated in this Part of this Act.
(2) The Agricultural Wages Board shall fix minimum rates of wages for workmen employed in agriculture for time-work, and may also, if and so far as they think it necessary or expedient, fix minimum rates of wages for workmen employed in agriculture for piece-work.
(3) Any such minimum rates may be fixed so as to apply universally to workmen employed in agriculture, or to any special class of workmen in agriculture, or to any special area, subject in each case to any exceptions which may be made by the Agricultural Wages Board for employment of any special character, and so as to vary according as the employment is for a day, week, month, or other period, or according to the number of working hours or the conditions of the employment, or so as to provide for a differential rate in the case of overtime:
Provided that if the Agricultural Wages Board are satisfied that any workman employed or desiring to be employed on time work to which a minimum rate fixed by the Board is applicable is affected by any mental or other infirmity or physical injury which renders him incapable of earning that minimum rate, the Board may grant to the workman, subject to such conditions, if any, as they prescribe, a permit exempting the employment of the workman from the provisions of this Act requiring wages to be paid at not less than the minimum rate, and while the permit is in force an employer shall not be liable to any penalty for paying wages to the workman at a rate less than the minimum rate so long as any conditions prescribed by the Board on the grant of the permit are complied with.
(4) Before fixing any minimum rate of wages the Agricultural Wages Board shall give notice of the rate which they propose to fix, and consider any objections to the rate which may be lodged with them within one month; and the Beard shall give notice of any minimum rates fixed by them in such manner as they think fit with a view to bringing the minimum rates, so far as practicable, to the knowledge of the persons affected.
(5) The Agricultural Wages Board may, if they think it expedient, cancel or vary any minimum rate fixed by them, and shall reconsider any such minimum rate if the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries direct them to do so, whether an application is made for the purpose or not; and the provisions of this section as to notices shall apply where it is proposed to cancel or vary the minimum rate in the same manner as they apply where it is proposed to fix the minimum rate.
(6) In fixing minimum rates under this section, the Agricultural Wages Board shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men wages which, in the opinion of the Board, are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation.
(7) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the operation of any agreement entered into or custom existing before the passing of this Act for the payment of wages at a rate higher than the minimum rate settled under this Act.
(8) In fixing minimum rates for time-work under this section, the Agricultural Wages Board shall secure for able-bodied men wages which, in their opinion, are equivalent to wages for an ordinary day's work at the rate of at least twenty-five shillings a week.
(9) In this Part of this Act the expression "able-bodied man" means any male workman who is not incapable by reason of age or menta or other infirmity or physical injury of performing the work of a normally efficient workman.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to omit "Board of Agriculture and Fisheries" from the first line of subsection (1) and to insert "county council of each county." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment is very important. It proposes an alteration in the authority which is to set up both the Wages Board in London and the various District Wages Committees. The proposal I have to make is that, instead of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries being the authority to appoint in the first instance, the county councils should have that power placed in their hands. As the Bill stands, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries can do anything and everything they like with reference to the Agricultural Wages Board in London and in connection with the District Wages Boards throughout the country. The Agricultural Wages Board has to consist of an equal number of employers and members representing workmen, and the appointed members, we find, are to be appointed by the Board of Agriculture if the Board so likes. Consequently, the Board of Agriculture is practically certain of a majority on the Wages Board, if it wants it. The Board has power, too, to appoint the chairman and the secretary. It can also make Regulations, and we do not know what those Regulations will be.
Very much the same thing takes place with regard to the District Committees as with the Central Wages Board. The Board of Agriculture can do anything they like with these Committees. They can establish District Committees consisting of equal numbers of employers and workers; and they can also appoint on to the Committees as many people representing themselves as they think fit. It is rather important to notice that both on the Central Wages Board in London and on the District Committees they can appoint as many people as they like to swamp the others, thereby giving them an absolute majority. I do not suppose they will do it, but there is that danger. I believe such a method is called, in Ireland, "packing." In this procedure we have an instance of the highest kind of bureaucracy. I do not suppose you could drive it to a more extreme limit. There appears to be no principle of election or representation whatever throughout this procedure. It is most important, in my opinion, that the people who are mostly affected should have the
458
right to elect representatives under this Bill. At present it is all very kindly done for them by the Board of Agriculture.
I have ventured to suggest an alteration, and I believe there will be others suggested later on. But I cannot talk about them, can only talk about the Bill as it is now drafted. In every county we have an elected body which has one very excellent work in connection with agriculture—namely, the county councils. Not only have they done a great deal with regard to agriculture, but they have considerable knowledge of it. The members have also a personal knowledge of local conditions, and are being constantly brought into contact with the agricultural community. Now that the harvest is coming on, we want to get this wages question settled as soon as possible, so that the farmer may know what are the different categories under which the workmen will be placed. In my opinion, it would be settled very much quicken if the county councils, which have the respect of the community in most of the counties, which respect they have well earned, could appoint the Wages Committees.
The object of my Amendment is to give the county councils power to establish an Agricultural Wages Board for each county, consisting of persons the majority of whom would not be members of the county council itself, but would be appointed by the county council in each county, and who should be nominated to represent employers and workmen in equal proportions. Then instead of having the chairman and secretary appointed by the Board of Agriculture, each Wages Committee would appoint its own chairman, and would elect a representative for the county. All these representatives should constitute the Wages Board for the county, subject to the overriding authority of the Wages Board in London. The whole thing would be done then. The county councils would appoint each of these Committees, and then they could set to work. Of course, discrepancies would exist in different counties, but there would be the overriding authority of the Wages Board which is to be set up in London.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("Board of Agriculture and Fisheries") and insert ("county council of each county").—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord opposite; county councils, I think, have plenty to do as it is, and I thought that one of the objections raised in this House very often has been that power is taken away from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I do not see why the Board of Agriculture cannot do very much the same in this case as the county councils. I live in a pastoral district under the West Riding County Council, which is a very powerful and entirely urban body. We get short shrift as a pastoral community, and I should be very sorry to see us lose, as an advisory local committee, the assistance we might get from the Board of Agriculture.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to speak now, because I have an alternative proposal which must be discussed to a certain extent at this stage. Although I regret to differ from the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, I think it would be a great mistake to substitute the county council of each county for the Board of Agriculture. In addition to county councils having enough work to do, this would very likely introduce a political element into their discussions which would be extremely unfortunate. We ought to keep our local bodies as far as possible to merely administrative duties. In connection with what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, on the Second Reading, I propose a scheme, which is on the Marshalled List of Amendments, which would introduce a similar system in England to that which obtains in Scotland—in other words, the system of Conciliation Boards, which would be independent so far either of the county council or of the Board of Agriculture and fisheries. However, I quite appreciate that there would be difficulties in the present position as regards conditions in England.
Let me now state shortly what I understand to be the proposal of the Government, and make a suggestion which I will ask them to adopt. I understood their proposal to be that, after the Agricultural Wages Board has been constituted, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries stands on one side altogether, and therefore the idea of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries coming into all these local Committees, and so on, would have no place in the Bill. After
460
the Agricultural Wages Board have been once constituted, they would appoint District Wages Committees for the areas. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment that it would be impossible to have these wages questions settled in London. They must be settled locally; and although the provision is right enough—that after the Agricultural Wages Board has been once appointed by the Board of Agriculture the District Committees should then be appointed by the Agricultural Wages Board—I want to suggest a proviso. The result of this proviso would be that, although in the first instance the Local Wages Committees were fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board, yet if in any district a Conciliation Board were subsequently started by the workpeople and the employers in that district, then that Conciliation Board should take the position of the Wages Committee constituted under the Bill. I think that this would be by far the best solution of the ultimate constitution of the Wages Boards. It might take some time before conciliation proposals of that kind came into practical operation. I hope, therefore, that in the first instance the power will be exercised by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I hope that the Wages Board which they constitute will then appoint the Wages Committees in the various districts, and that, if in time a Conciliation Board is possible by organisation as between employers and employed in the various districts, then the Scottish system may be allowed to supersede the system introduced by the Bill. I think that would have been the effect of the Amendment as proposed by Lord Desborough; but my Amendment is a very long one and I do not propose to trouble your Lordships at this moment with all the intricacies of it. If the Government will proceed on those lines, I think the Wages Board would be constituted in the most effective manner.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The House is rather in a difficulty, because the Amendment before us is an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Desborough, but we find ourselves discussing alternative proposals for dealing with the same point. We have really three schemes. There is the scheme of the Bill, there is the scheme of my noble friend Lord Desborough based upon county councils, and there is the scheme embodied in my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor's long Amendment

461
in which he endeavours to introduce something like the Scottish system on this side of the border.
May I say, first, that I confess I was very much attracted by the idea of invoking the county councils. You have the machinery in existence. It is part of the administrative machinery under which we all live and have our being, and there seemed to be a good deal to be said for bringing them in. There are, however, practical objections which have been indicated by various speakers, and I will not repeat them now. But the scheme of the Bill, I think, will be immensely improved by the Amendments which stand on the Paper in the name of His Majesty's Government. The whole complexion of the scheme is changed. It was, as I think somebody said just now, a highly bureaucratic system. You started at the top with the Board of Agriculture, and everything moved downwards from the Board in Whitehall. But under the scheme now proposed, the Board of Agriculture, it is true, will have to establish the machinery at the outset; it will have to form the Central Wages Board, and the Central Wages Board in turn will have to set up the District Committees; but I gather from the Amendments on the Paper that once the District Committees are set up they will be allowed, if I may use a vulgar expression, to run their own show with a minimum of interference from headquarters. Some interference is, of course, necessary, because otherwise we may have all sorts of overlapping and contradictory decisions, but the policy is to rely as much as possible upon the district bodies. That seems to me to be absolutely sound. I think you will in that way be drawing nearer to what always seemed to me to be the best solution of this question—that is, that you should rely upon local Conciliation Boards to bring workmen and employers together.
My noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor made a suggestion just row which struck me as a very useful one. I understand that he does not desire to press the whole of his somewhat lengthy Amendment, but he asks the House whether it would not allow the second subsection of that Amendment to survive. By so doing I do not think you would do any harm whatever to the Bill. Lord Parmoor would not impose these voluntary boards upon anybody. He merely asks that if I he district, of its own
462
accord, chooses to net up a local committee which in all respects fulfils the requirements of the Bill, then that that body should be recognised and allowed to do the work of the District Committee. That seems to me to be an admirable feature of elasticity in the Government proposal, and I should be very glad, I confess, if we were to be told that we were to have, not only the Amendment, which stands in the name of the Duke of Marlborough, but this little excrescence grafted upon it. I am sure it would serve a very useful purpose.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I am grateful to the noble Marquess for his speech, because he has saved me the necessity of explaining at any length what is the proposal of the Government with regard to the rather difficult point we Lave now reached. Let me say, in the first place, that I hope the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will not press it, both for the objections which have been forcibly urged, and also because I hope he will recognise that in the Amendment which the Government have put on the Paper they have tried to meet the criticisms of this part of their scheme which were made partly on the Second Reading debate and partly subsequently.
I think the scheme of the Bill as it was originally introduced was much nearer what I believe the vast majority of this House really desires than might appear from some of the criticisms which have been passed during the course of the debate. I know that it is one of those many cases in which the hard, technical, complicated, difficult terms of an Act of Parliament, which are so unlike any language which we use among ourselves in ordinary life, greatly misrepresent, or give a false impression of, the actual state of things which will exist when its provisions are being enforced in practice. The last thing in the world which is in the mind of the framers of this Bill or of the Government is to have a hard-and-fast bureaucratic system in which everything is going to be dictated from Whitehall. The local bodies who are going to decide the question of minimum rates of wages from local knowledge, by local considerations, and on, I firmly believe, a basis of give-and-take as between different classes, are the people who are really going to carry out the provisions of this Bill. It is true that you use an existing Government

463
Department in order to call them into existence, and it is further true that in theory the Government Department might interfere with their decisions and try to substitute the system of bureaucracy at Whitehall for the more practical system of allowing these things to be settled by local people on local considerations, but we are not talking theory here to-day.
This Bill is based on the Trade Boards Act of 1909. The machinery which is going to be adopted in order to call these local Committees into existence, even as the Bill was originally framed, although it will come much clearer when the Amendments on the Paper are passed, is taken from the Trade Boards Act, and we have had nine years experience now of the successful working of that Act to show that the effect of a measure of this kind really is to compel the creation of what are virtually Conciliation Boards in the various industries to which it applies. Under the, Trade Boards Act I may say that at present rates of wages are being fixed by committees of employers and employed in thirteen industries, and those wages are affecting 17,000 employers and 400,000 workpeople; and not only has the condition of the workpeople been benefited in the working of the Act, but the various fears which were expressed of the terrible things which were going to happen under these novel provisions as they then were have been thoroughly falsified. The very last thing that could be said of the Trade Boards Act is that it has created a bureaucratic system in industry. On the contrary, what it has created is a system by which employers and employed working together manage their own affairs, and in which there is really self-government in the industries—something like the system which at the present moment, in the face of industrial unrest, many people are thinking of applying more generally throughout the country. It is a system of local government and settling wages by local considerations, by people who are affected by them—not from Whitehall—which we had in view. That is what was intended by the Bill as it was originally framed, and I think that is the effect which would have been produced.
But I think the matter is made very much clearer—and we have tried to go a long way to meet the objections of noble Lords—by the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Duke, and which
464
will be presently moved. I hope, in view of that Amendment, which has been better explained by the noble Marquess than I can explain it myself, and in view of the fact that we are further prepared to meet the other suggestion made by Lord Parmoor—to which I will refer more particularly directly—in view of these things I trust that my noble friend Lord Desborough will not insist upon pressing his Amendment.
One word with regard to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. I understand it to be this, that where a committee representative of employers and employed in equal numbers is voluntarily created in any district, there should be power for the Agricultural Wages Board to adopt that body as its district committee, and it will then be in the same position as the District Committee to be created under the Bill. That I think is the noble and learned Lord's proposal?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes; that is so.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I have not the slightest doubt whatever that, even without any special provision to that effect in the Bill, the Agricultural Wages Board will be only too happy to accept such a voluntary committee if it were constituted on the general lines of one of its own District Committees; but if, when we come to that point in the discussion of this measure, the House wishes to lay it down expressly that the Agricultural Wages Board should have such a power of adopting a voluntarily-instituted committee, then the Government would be prepared to accept it. At a later stage we may ask your Lordships to consider whether it is really necessary to do so. But let it be clearly understood that we mean the same thing. The object is to set up local committees of employers and employed, with one or two independent members, because there must be somebody to hold the balance between them.
There is only one thing more I should like to say. In the course of this discussion the suggestion has been thrown out that, inasmuch as the composition of the Agricultural Wages Board is left absolutely in the power of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, they may swamp the representatives of employers and employed by putting on a lot of nominees. There, again. I appeal to the experience of the Act

465
on which, all this is based. In the case of the Trade Boards Act, the Boards which have been appointed by the Board of Trade in the various industries have consisted in every case of a considerable number of representatives of employers and employed and a very small additional number of appointed members. As a matter of fact, the cases with which I am familiar, and which I am assured by the officials of the Department are representative, are cases in which a Board has consisted of twenty representatives of the employers, twenty representatives of the employed, and five appointed members; and it is certainly the intenton of the Board of Agriculture, in giving this system a start and in creating the first Agricultural Wages Board, which itself will be the parent of the various District Committees, that this Board shall consist in by far the largest extent of representatives of employers and employed in equal numbers, with a small number of added members.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not know whether this is the proper time to say it, but the noble Viscount has just spoken of the voluntary committees which at present exist in Scotland, and which Lord Parmoor proposes to make possible under this Bill. All I wish to say about this is that if you are going to make it possible to establish those voluntary boards, put it into the Bill; and if you will look at Lord Parmoor's Amendment, you will see that subsection (2) of that Amendment does that very thing.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I hope your Lordships will allow me to apologise for speaking rather frequently. But I should like to make this point. Perhaps the Amendment down in the name of the noble Duke would not have appeared on the Paper unless I, or somebody else, had drawn attention to this question of the powers which have been taken by the Board of Agriculture. Of course, I have nothing against the President of the Board of Agriculture, but in these matters it is absolutely necessary that powers of this character should be considered very carefully, and I venture to think that I have done no harm in drawing your Lordships' attention to this. It has been said over and over again in this House that agriculture is different from other trades, that a man engaged in agriculture does a great many things in the course of a week's work,
466
and that one must have local knowledge in order to award a fair rate of wages. I should like to emphasise what the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has just said—namely, that the great thing is to put this power into the Bill. We have already had experience in the Lumsden case pointing to the importance: of having a thing expressly stated in an Act of Parliament. Those who have to interpret Acts of Parliament do not pay attention to what has been said in Parliament by Ministers. There is no doubt that express provision should be put into the Bill. I withdraw my Amendment on condition that the Amendment down in the name of the Duke of Marlborough, plus subsection (2) of Lord Parmoor's Amendment, as suggested by Lord Lansdowne, will be carried.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had the following Amendment on the Paper—
Page 4, line 30, leave out (" and after consultation with the Minister of Labour ") and insert (" after the conclusion of peace").
The noble Viscount said: After what has occurred in connection with the Amendment moved by my noble friend, I do not propose to move (his Amendment. I put it on the Paper for a certain reason—namely, because a definite and most specific pledge was given by the Prime Minister, and I have never heard any reason why that pledge should be abandoned. But the present debate seems to me to open the road to a satisfactory settlement of this particular question. I do not want to interfere with that settlement in any way; but if I should find it necessary to do so, I can move my Amendment on the Report-stage.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I move to leave out subsection (2) and to insert two new subsections. The first of these new subsections runs: "The Agricultural Wages Board shall appoint District Wages Committees for such areas, consisting of one or more counties or county boroughs as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may by regulation prescribe"—
LORD PARMOOR: I would ask the noble Duke only to move so far as he has read, because I want to move an Amendment at that stage.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Then I move the new subsection (2) only. I may explain to your Lordships, in addition to what the noble Viscount has said with great force and clearness, that the effect of this Amendment is to alter the balance of authority between the Central Wages Board and the District Wages Boards. Under the Bill as it came from the Commons, the Agricultural Wages Board fixed the wages on the reports of the District Committees. Under the new arrangement the District Committees will fix the wages subject to the approval of the Central Board. That is the purport of my Amendment. It covers all the points raised by my noble friend Lord Milner, and I think it almost meets the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. If your Lordships will accept this Amendment of mine, subject to the consideration of the noble and learned Lord's suggestion as to voluntary committees, it may be in conformity with the wishes of the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following subsections:
"(2) The Agricultural Wages Board shall appoint district wages committees for such areas, consisting of one or more counties or county boroughs as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may by regulation prescribe."—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
LORD HARRIS: No doubt the Government have thought this over carefully, but is the area of the county the most convenient area? In sonic large counties—in long counties such as mine—the area is very great indeed, and not very conveniently served by railways. I take it that these District Wages Committees would have to travel about, or would require to have evidence brought to some central place, and where the railway facilities are not convenient a good deal of waste of time and considerable expense will be caused to the people summoned.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: That will be dealt with tinder Regulation.
LORD HARRIS: It is a pity it is not included in the clause.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: To meet the point raised by Lord Harris, might not words be put in to say "county or part of a county." You need not necessarily take the whole county.
VISCOUNT MILNER: That seems a reasonable suggestion. Perhaps we might take it into consideration and move something on Report to meet the case. I should, however, like to consult the draftsman. On the face of it, I think the noble Earl is perfectly right.
LORD PARMOOR: I want to add to the proposed new subsection (2) moved by the noble Duke the proviso to which I referred—namely, that if Conciliation Boards are formed, they might take the place of the constituted District Wages Committees. I said that the words were substantially the same as those in my Amendment on page 6, but I have handed in to the Lord Chairman a form which I have accepted from The draftsman of the Board of Agriculture. That form is substantially the same as my words, but a slight alteration in drafting has been made, because draftsmen like to make some alteration. I propose, therefore, that the words which have handed to the Lord Chairman be inserted.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will you read them out?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: After the word "prescribe," to insert "Provided that if at any time the Agricultural Wages Board are satisfied that, in any area for which a District Wages Committee may be appointed, a representative joint committee, consisting of a chairman and persons representing in equal numbers employers and workers engaged in agriculture, exists for purposes which include the fixing of minimum rates of wages for workers engaged in agriculture, the Board may recognise and appoint that committee to be the District Wages Committee for the area."
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Has not the noble and learned Lord left out the words "in equal proportions "?
LORD PARMOOR: The words read out came from the draftsman of the Board. He asked me to put the proviso in that form. If there is any question of the kind suggested, it might be looked into before the Report stage. The words are the same practically as the words of my Amendment, but not actually my words. I thought it better to adopt the words that were handed to me.
VISCOUNT MILLER: I have only just seen these words. Would it not be better to move them on the Report stage?
LORD PARMOOR: I shall certainly insist that the words be put in now. I know what it often leads to if things are left to Report stage. They can of course, be considered at the Report stage.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Then it will be subject to consideration on Report Stage if they are inserted?
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I hope you will not object to our raising on Report objections which may not occur to us now. I do not think there is any difference in intension between the noble and learned Lord and myself. We will let the words go in low, and if there is any difficulty about the matter, we can bring it up on Report.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have been asked to substitute the word "persons" for "workers." The proviso would then read as follows:—"Provided that if at any time the Agricultural Wages Board are satisfied that, in any area for which a District Wages Committee may be appointed, a representative joint committee, consisting of a chairman and persons representing in equal numbers employers and persons engaged in agricultural, exists for purposes which include the fixing of minimum rates of wages for persons engaged in agriculture, the Board may recognise and appoint that committee to be the District Wages Committee for the area."
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Surely the substitution of "persons" for "workers" alters the whole suggestion of the clause. The noble and learned Lord's words are "employers" for one category and "workmen" for the other category. If you say "employers and persons engaged in agriculture" as the alternative, you alter your category.
LORD PARMOOR: I have not the words before me. I accepted the draft from the Board, in which it had the word "worker "for persons.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: It has both words in different places.
LORD PARMOOR: I think "workmen" is the right expression, as the noble Marquess has stated.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have not "workmen" anywhere; it is "workers."
LORD PARMOOR: I mean where you read "persons."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I read that instead of "workmen" in both cases. In both cases I understand you now want to put in the word "workmen" instead of "workers."
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to with the proviso moved by Lord PARMOOR added.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following subsection:
"(3) Subject as here in after provided, a district wages committee shall fix minimum rates of wages for workmen employed in agriculture in their district for time work, and they may, if and so far as they think it necessary or expedient, fix minimum rates of wages for workmen employed in agriculture in their district for piece work: Provided that any rate so fixed shall not have effect until it has been approved by the Agricultural Wages Board."—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the question is put, I should like to ask the Government to explain the absolute necessity for the last proviso in the subsection. One of the main objects of the changes which have taken place in this Part of the Bill is to enable rates of wages to be fixed rapidly. A certain decentralisation was proposed under which, instead of the whole thing being referred to the central body, it might be fixed by the Local District Committee—that is to say, until we get to this proviso, which says: "Provided that any rate so fixed shall not have effect until it has been approved by the Agricultural Wages Board." There will be an enormous number of these rates of wages. There will not only be time rates, but there may be aninfinite number of piece rates; and as this proposed subsection is drawn every one of these piece rates must be

471
referred to the Agricultural Wages Board before it can have effect. Surely that is not the intention. I would suggest that the words should run: "Provided that any rate so fixed shall be fixed until it has been disapproved by the Agricultural Wages Board." That would retain for the Agricultural Wages Board the power which they must necessarily have in certain cases of varying what had been locally settled, but would not hold the whole thing up until it had been settled. I put it the other way round, so that prima facie the local arrangement should hold the field. I recognise that control by the central body is necessary, because an adjustment has to be made between two adjoining localities where different rates of wages might otherwise be fixed. But until the matter had been considered and disapproved by the Central Board, surely the arrangement of the Local Board ought to have effect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My present impression—and I give it for what it is worth only—is that it is better to keep the words as they are, because it is desirable that there should be a certain unity of principle in these matters, and that the Agricultural Wages Board should have ratified the proposal, so to speak, before it takes effect. But we will certainly consider the suggestion made by the noble Marquess.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, after ("area") insert ("or to any special class in a special area").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("Agricultural Wages Board) and insert ("district wages committee").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I move to leave out from the word "overtime" to the end of subsection (3). These words must come
472
out, because they are the old words for which new words have been inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave out from ("overtime") to the end of subsection (3).—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: We accept this Amendment, since the Amendment of the noble Marquess has been accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The next three Amendments are consequential on the main Amendment.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("Agricultural Wages Board") and insert ("district wages committee")
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("Board") and insert ("committee")
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("Agricultural Wages Board") and insert ("district wages committee").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The next two Amendments standing in my name are also consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("Board of Agriculture and Fisheries") and insert ("Agricultural Wages Board")
Page 5, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("Agricultural Wages Board") and insert ("district wages committee").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("Board") and insert ("committee").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
LORD HARRIS: Board refers to the Minimum Wages Board. To what does "committee" refer?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The District Committee.
LORD HARRIS: The District Committee is not mentioned. You must put in the whole title of the body if that is what you are refering to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have inserted District Wages Committee.
LORD HARRIS: Not in the first line.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In lines 37 and 38 the words "District Wages Committee" have been inserted.
LORD HARRIS: I should like to raise a point, on that. Is this quite wise? It is a very important consideration which is being provided for in this subsection. The onus is thrown upon whatever the body is to secure wages which are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable the man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation, The occupation is very general over the whole county. Do you want to exclude the Agricultural Wages Board from considering that? At present you are going to throw the onus on the District Wages Committees, and the Agricultural Wages Board will not come in at all.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It does come in in this sense, that it has always to ratify.
LORD HARRIS: Is the noble Viscount going to consider that?
VISCOUNT MILNER: No. We are not going to consider whether the Agricultural Wages Board shall have the final voice. It must have that. The only question we intend to consider is whether the rate fixed by the District Wages Board is to have effect until it is altered or approved by the Agricultural Wages Board.
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to move an Amendment, when
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON said: I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that under an arrangement which was arrived at yesterday it was decided to adjourn the discussion on this Bill at seven o'clock this evening, in order to enable the House to take the final stages of the New Ministries Bill. I hope that that discussion will not take more than an hour, although, of course, I am in the hands of the House about the matter. With regard to the Bill which is now before us, although we have made substantial progress this afternoon there is still a very long furrow to hoe in front of us. I think,
474
therefore, that it would be the opinion of your Lordships that it is desirable that we should resume the present debate this evening. I have made inquires and I find that that is in accord with the general sentiment of the House. I would therefore propose that, after taking the final stages of the New Ministries Bill, your Lordships should adjourn for an hour or more. I believe that no arrangements have been made in the dining room for the satisfaction of your Lordships this evening, and you will therefore desire to go elsewhere. Presuming that we conclude the discussion now immediately before us by about eight o'clock, I would propose to adjourn until a quarter past nine and then ask your Lordships to resume the discussion on the Com Production Bill.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee this evening.

PETROL BOARD FOR IRELAND.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether a Petrol Board for Ireland has been appointed, and, if so, what is the reason why it has not commenced operations. I understand that the names of four gentlemen were approved, but for some reason they have not been actually appointed, and it is supposed that the reason of the delay is that another Government Department is anxious to be represented on that Board. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me if that is the case, or what is the reason of the delay.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in answer to the Question of my noble friend I have to tell him that an Advisory Committee has recently been appointed in Dublin. I have not been favoured with the names of the gentlemen who compose, that Committee, but I understand that they will commence their work forthwith. Applications made to the Committee of which I spoke will be forwarded to the Board of Trade with their advice on the subject.

NEW MINISTRIES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Powers and duties of Minister of Reconstruction.
2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and advise upon the

475
problems which may arise out of the present war and may have to be dealt with upon its termination, and for the purposes aforesaid to institute and conduct such inquiries, prepare such schemes, and make such recommendations as he thinks fit; and the Minister of Reconstruction shall, for the purposes aforesaid, have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority, which have been conferred by or under any statute, as His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise the Minister to exercise or perform concurrently with, or in consultation with, the Government Department or authority concerned.
(2) The Minister of Reconstruction shall in each year present to Parliament a report of such of the schemes prepared and recommendations made by him as he shall deem suitable for publication.
(3) Any Order in Council made for the purpose of this Act may be added to, varied, or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
(4) Provided that no Order in Council under this Act shall be made except in pursuance of a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I rise to move an Amendment which, owing to the fact that I was not aware that the House was going to meet so early as it did yesterday, I could not move yesterday afternoon. The Amendment I have placed on the Paper is to insert after "problems," in subsection (1) of Clause 2, the words "other than the questions of commercial, industrial, and agricultural policy." Of course, this is an Amendment intended to limit the powers of the Minister of Reconstruction, whoever he may be, if this Bill is ultimately carried into law, which I hope personally it may not be for reasons which I will state almost immediately. I own that I am one of those who think that this notion of creating new Ministries one after the other has gone quite far enough and I feel sure that it is the general opinion, outside Parliament at all events, that we have enough new Ministries already and that no more are desired. It is for that purpose that I move this Amendment.
I know that some people may say—I have heard it said myself—" Oh, but if you move an Amendment of this kind you leave this new Minister with nothing whatever to do." I do not agree with that suggestion. I can think of half a dozen things already, all of them of the utmost importance. There are still the questions of the Army, the Navy, demobilisation after the war, munitions, education, and many other things. Are they nothing? Surely there la ample in those questions alone to engage the attention of the new Ministry. I am the more encouraged in the view I hold because I understand from what happened
476
in the other House in connection with this Bill that the Government escaped defeat only by the very extraordinary position which it occupies on the Front Benches of the two Houses of Parliament. As a matter of fact, this is precisely the same Amendment as one which was moved in the House of Commons. That Amendment was defeated by a majority only of 24, which majority was obtained because there were no fewer than 36 Members at the very least, so I am told, on the Government Bench in another place that evening. Evidently that Division did not express the opinion of the House of Commons apart from the members of the Government, and this inclines me to think that I am justified in moving the same Amendment in this House.
I want to know where this creation of new Ministries is going to stop. At one time the Government were satisfied, when in difficulties, with moving the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the position with regard to which they were assailed. But unfortunately some of the Committees acted with great rapidity and soon presented their Reports; so it became necessary on the part of the Government, when in difficulties, to resort to something more important and to appoint a new Ministry. Of course, a new Ministry takes a good deal longer in getting to work. I do not in the least under-rate the importance of the subjects which have to be considered after the war. But I am not satisfied that this Ministry is necessary, especially if the gentleman who we hear is likely to be its chief is the man who really will be appointed. For instance, take questions relating to commercial policy. I do not see how he is going to carry out the express views of the Government with regard to the arrangements made in the Conference at Paris, and in connection with which I believe fresh and more recent assurances have been given, because this gentleman, Dr. Addison, as I understand, is one of the strongest and most confirmed Free Traders; and it is certain that Resolutions passed at the Paris Conference differ entirely from that particular policy such as it is and has been known in this country in days past.
I do not know that there is any necessity for me to say anything further upon this subject. I entirely agree with the attitude taken up in the House of Commons by the Members who supported this Amendment, and I now submit it with great hope and

477
confidence to your Lordships on this occasion. I am sure that in considering it your Lordships will bear in mind the enormous number of new Ministries that Lave been already created, a number quite unprecedented in the history of this country ever since it has had a Constitutional Government; and I feel more than justified by that fact alone, if there were nothing else, in moving this Amendment and in asking your Lordships to support it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 10, after ("problems") insert ("other than the questions of commercial, industrial, and agricultural policy ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, yesterday the noble Viscount, when he found that he had missed his chance of moving this Amendment then, uttered a word or two of apology for not having been in his place. May I say that my only regret is that, in addition to very heavy labours which he has undertaken this afternoon with regard to another Bill, the noble Viscount has been obliged to add the moving of this Amendment to the Bill now before the House; though I am sure he knows that I am on this occasoin, as on all others, I hope, at the noble Viscount's service. It is true, as the noble Viscount says, that a number of new Ministries have been created. He called it an unprecedented number; but surely if there ever was an unprecedented state of affairs in this country it is to-day.
The noble Viscount moves to leave out questions of industrial, commercial, and agricultural policy. If he presses his Amendment and carries it. I cannot help remarking that he will take away a great deal of the purpose and effect of the Bill. After all, whatever subject may arise for the consideration of the Minister of Reconstruction, whether it be demobilisation, dealing with the great army of soldiers and the great army of civilians who will require employment when the war is over, or the various trades with their questions of employers and employed, it seems to me that at every turn you come up against industry and commerce. Further, the industries now concentrated in the war are equally concerned with commerce and industry; and the main object of this new Minister is to think out plans—the decisions are not to be taken by the new Minister, but on the responsibility of the
478
Government—to prepare for peace. The policy of the new Minister in regard to various trades is to consult and to take counsel with trade associations and to advise as to readjustment of industries, and so on. So that whatever turn one takes, I respectfully suggest that industry and commerce meet one on every hand. A good deal has been said as to the resentment that may be occasioned and the friction that may be caused in certain Departments. As the noble Viscount knows, a variety of Committees have been reporting to two Committees, first to the Cabinet Committee, and then I think to an unofficial Committee, but there has been no sign of resentment or friction; and it is in some measure owing to the success of those inquiries that it was thought advisable to develop still more the idea and to put a responsible Minister at the head who would have ready access to the Cabinet and could report to them.
It has been said that there is machinery enough, that heads of Departments already exist who could consult with the Prime Minister. That statement is true, and applies to ordinary times; but in these extraordinary times, when the head of every Department is so occupied with business connected with the war—and we know the responsibilities and the immense work of the Prime Minister—it does seem absolutely important that there should be an individual such as this Bill desires to set up to collect information and to make suggestions to the Government. I should not have mentioned the particular gentleman's name had the noble Viscount not done so. Perhaps the House will allow me to do this, because I think it is not improbable that I am the only member of the House who has been thrown into close contact with Dr. Addison. He is, as I have no doubt many of your Lordships know, a member of the medical profession. For a great many years he has been on the staff of one of our largest hospitals, where he was a distinguished lecturer until he took to public life. I have worked with him when he was on the staff of this hospital, and I had a good opportunity of observing his characteristics. Your Lordships will remember that when the country was discussing the Insurance Bill there were very divergent views taken by the medical profession as to the usefulness, value, convenience, and so on, of that measure, and it was my duty, being the head of the administration of one of the hospitals, to

479
see what I could do to help to bring things into light; and I can assure your Lordships that I then had an opportunity of observing that this gentleman of whom I am speaking possessed, in addition to great abilities, qualities of patience and tact and discretion which were very instrumental in our getting a working plan and settling very difficult matters in connection with the National Insurance scheme. So I venture to say that on that knowledge I think the selection that has been made by the Government—if I am correct in supposing it is so—is a very good one. I agree, that it would be quite possible for even the ablest man who went without discretion into these matters easily to upset this or any other scheme. But, where these matters are handled with tact and discretion I do not think there will be anything to fear. I assure the noble Viscount that this matter has had the fullest consideration of His Majesty's Government. It is a matter of first importance in connection with the state of things which will obtain after the war, and I earnestly hope that the noble Viscount will not think it right to press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I suppose it was almost inevitable that, in reply to my noble friend's Amendment, the noble Viscount opposite should make a Second Reading speech, which indeed is what he has done, in support of the principle of the Bill. With regard to that, perhaps I may be allowed merely to say that though we have not opposed the Second Reading of the Bill formally, yet it is a Bill for the whole principle of which I have never had, and I think a great many of my noble friends here have never had, the smallest affection. The creation of a Ministry for this particular purpose has never commended itself to me, and it has not commended it self to me any more in-the course of the discussion. I have always regarded the creation of a Minister for this purpose as the invention of a sort of cuckoo, if I may say so, who is encouraged to go about and lay eggs in other Departments which will hatch into somewhat voracious birds in the harmless and peaceable nests which, without their presence, would proceed in the ordinary way to bring up their broods. But since it has been decided that there is to be a Minister, there is nothing more to be said on that point. For that reason I trust that my noble friend will not press his Amendment, because the form of inquiry into reconstruction, whether it be,
480
as I should have preferred, the original Committee, or, as it is to be, a separate Department, must, I think, undertake investigation into some of the questions which are covered by my noble friend's Amendment. You cannot say that all commercial and industrial and agricultural matters cannot be made the subject for an inquiry into reconstruction. I think the method is the wrong one. But if an inquiry is to be made, I fear that it must cover at any rate some of those particular questions. I trust, therefore, that my friend will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My noble friend will probably remember that he and I have often met in the hunting field, and in my earlier days I was rather remarkable for the rapidity with which I was able to count my pack when I had gone away with the fox. When I looked at the empty Benches around me—I think I have only two couple and a half with me this evening—it did not take me very long to make up my mind that it would be perfectly useless in the circumstances to go to a Division. I congratulate the Leader of the House on the tactical skill which he always displays in the management of business here and elsewhere, and I think it was never better displayed than when he selected this particular opportunity for taking this Bill on Report. The thing I regret most of all is this, that having made great struggles in this direction on more than one occasion in this House we, must now look forward to yet another Department which will be issuing Orders to the agriculturists of the country on a subject of which I am afraid this gentleman, in spite of all that has been said of him by the noble Viscount, knows nothing whatever himself.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I would, in a sentence, congratulate the noble Viscount and the House on his graceful exit from the hunting field—the only occasion on which I ever recollect he has retired from that field of honour.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I move to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 2, and to insert in its place the new subsection as printed on the Paper. I feel some diffidence in attempting to do anything which seems like interfering with the decision which the House arrived at

481
deliberately last night, but I hope the noble Marquess opposite will not think that my Amendment is intended to be at all hostile to what I understand his views to be. I ventured to say last night that I thought that his Amendment was in a form which went too far, and it seems to me that the result of it would be to occasion the loss of the Bill, which I do not imagine he is prepared to do. I think it would have been better if he had not moved his Amendment in a form which the Government could not accept and which the other House undoubtedly would not accept. Therefore I have ventured to put down words which are in a common and well-understood form, and which seem to me to give to the noble Marquess substantially what he requires—that is to say, that Parliament would not depart altogether with control of the manifestations of the proposals under this Bill. I sympathise to a great extent with the view of the noble Marquess where he fears the shadowy monster which seems to have been created by this Bill. On the other hand, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill rather represents the new Minister as a species of Buddha, who will be occupied chiefly in meditation and in contemplating his own superior wisdom. But I do think that the clause as it stands creates a proper case for having this very usual subsection added to it; and if the noble Marquess were disposed to accept it, I cannot help appealing to the Government that they also should accept it and leave the matter in that way.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, lines 1 to 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) An Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented by either House within the next subsequent forty days on which that House shall have sat praying His Majesty that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything already done thereunder."—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, the procedure proposed in the Amendment has been adopted in many previous Acts, and provides a reasonable method, I suggest, of meeting the views generally expressed by the majority last night. The objections from a constitutional point of view to proceeding by Resolution in both Houses were stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I need not repeat them. It is true that the Amendment
482
leaves the Ministry of Reconstruction with wider powers than were left by the Amendment of the noble Marquess which was carried last night, but it also affords to either Houses an unrestricted power of objecting to proposals made in any Order in Council laid on the Table in accordance with the Amendment. It does not make it necessary to find time in the House of Commons for this purpose, since the Order in Council may be annulled on an Address being presented within the specified period in the House of Lords alone. On behalf of the Government I accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that the Government are in favour of the noble Lord's Amendment?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am placed in rather a difficult position. I do not want to take up an unreasonable attitude upon this question, but I must be allowed to take exception to one or two things which were said just now. In the first place, my noble friend on the Back Bench said that if the Bill went forward in the form in which it now stands it would run the risk of shipwreck in the other House of Parliament. I am afraid that my information as to the opinion of the other House of Parliament is not the same as that of my noble and learned friend. My belief is that there is no part of the Bill which would be received with such enthusiasm by another place as the subsection which I induced your Lordships to insert last night. Please do not let noble Lords be under the impression, from anything which has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, that this Bill is popular in the other House. It was viewed with the greatest possible suspicion there. But that is no reason why one should not try to work, as far as one possibly can, in support of the policy of His Majesty's Government. That seems to me a very important consideration. Now I am asked to accept this Amendment, and your Lordships are asked to reverse the decision to that extent which was arrived at last night. I am disposed to suggest to your Lordships that in substance that course should be adopted. I do not think that this subsection is so good as my own, but it does secure a great deal. It secures the power to either Home of Parliament to

483
stop the transfer of powers from one of the Departments to this new Ministry. The noble Viscount who has just sat down said that that would be all right for the House of Lords, though it would not be of any use for the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Not quite that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount, perhaps, did not express himself with the vulgar vigour of my own phrases, but that is what it came to. I must say I think that is rather hard on the House of Commons. I do not see on the face of it why they should be deprived of this power of differing from the proceeding of the Government in transferring powers. But I will not go further into the matter, because I propose to accept the proposal which is made, subject to this. I desire to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to certain words at the end of his Amendment. He says, "His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything already done thereunder." That is the, usual form in which this particular legislative phrase is generally inserted, but it has a very material and substantial effect in the present case. Parliament is about to separate; there will be a long interval. All that the subsection, as the noble and learned Lord has proposed it, would effect is that when the House reassembles any Order in Council which was required to transfer these powers would be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, for forty days. But in the meantime, during the Recess, all the powers might have been transferred, all the powers that were required by the most progressive member of the reconstruction policy, and then when your Lordships' House was asked to disagree with it you might disagree but it would I have no effect. All the powers would have been transferred, and the words at the end of the noble and learned Lord's Amend meat would come in, "but without prejudice to the validity of anything already done thereunder." So that if I accepted the words in the form in which he has moved them, I should absolutely defeat the whole policy of the Amendment which your Lordships accepted last night. May we not come to an agreement? I suggest that the words should run in this way,
484
"His Majesty in Council may annul the Order and it shall thenceforth be void, and any transfer of powers authorised by such Order should thenceforth be annulled, but subject to the validity of anything done thereunder." That would save what is really intended to be saved—any action that was taken generally speaking under the effect of the Order; but it would not preserve the transfer of powers, which is exactly the thing I want the. House not to accept. If the noble and learned Lord will allow me to alter his Amendment in that form we shall be able to come to an agreement.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am inclined to think that the noble Marquess is right about that, and that there is danger under the words as they stand, which are, as I have already said, in common form. There is a danger that the very thing we want to avoid may take place. I think that the noble Marquess has succeeded in drafting an Amendment that would make the situation work quite equitably, and I should be very glad if the Government would accept it in that form.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will you move it in that form?
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to what has passed as to the form the Amendment should take, the words which the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) read just now cover the words of the Bill. The words are—and it is the usual form—that, if an Address be passed His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, which shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything already done thereunder. That means that the Order becomes void from the time when His Majesty annuls it after the Address. The words "without prejudice to anything done thereunder" do not, of course, save the transfer in the future; it merely validates any act in the interval that had elapsed between the Order in Council being made and its being annulled in consequence of an Address from one of the Houses of Parliament. I suggest that it would be better to keep the usual form. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie agrees, but it would to my mind exactly express what the noble Marquess stated in his observations.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the form is quite familiar to all of us who have bad anything to do with this House. It is common form, as has been said, and I have always seen it applied as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack informs us it will be applied in this instance—that is to say, to the saving of anything; administrative which has been done under the particular Order; and supposing that to be the sole effect of the words as they stand, I have no doubt my noble friend would be quite satisfied. Nobody would suggest that you should try to undo things which had been done by way of legislation, But there is, of course, the other interpretation which both my noble friend the noble Marquess and the noble and learned Lord opposite conceive to be possible; and if that were so, if it meant that the actual transferring, having been done, could not be undone, then I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree that it would entirely nullify the effect of my noble friend's Amendment. But if he assures us that such is not the case, I have no doubt my noble friend would accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a very hazardous thing to differ from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on a point of law, and I should not venture to do so had I not consulted two other noble and learned Lords who are members of this House on the subject. However, if he thinks that it does not make any difference, perhaps for greater caution he will allow us to put in the words.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I should be very sorry if the noble Marquess persists in his attitude. On a point of law I trust that he will be willing to take the opinion of the Lord Chancellor. The Amendment proposed by Lord Muir Mackenzie is one to which we secured the assent, though not without trouble, of the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary will have to use all his powers of persuasion to carry it through the House of Commons. I do not know that he would view with equal favour the Amendment of the noble Marquess. I should therefore much prefer that the Amendment should be carried by your Lordships in the form first moved by the noble and learned Lord behind me, and as subsequently explained by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite realise what my noble friend has said, but I venture to think that I should be ill advised to part with the words which I have suggested. The Lord Chancellor has told your Lordships that in his opinion the words that I propose to insert do not make any difference in the sense. At any rate, he will not from his point of view be damaged by inserting the words. Having taken what precautions I can to ascertain the effect of the words, I do not think I can accept the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands and I venture to press my alteration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My only objection to the change is that the original is a very settled form of words, and if it is altered in one instance it might throw doubt on what was meant in another instance. Will this meet the view of the noble Marquess? That it should be conveyed, when this Bill goes back to the House of Commons, by the Home Secretary, that the House adopted this Amendment simply on the view that its effect should be what has been stated in the words suggested by the noble Marquess. My only objection is that I think it a great pity to break into the established form of words by inserting words which might create doubt in other cases. With regard to the particular case, I certainly have no objection to the words on the merits here, which in my view do exactly the same thing as is intended.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am placed in an almost hopeless position. I cannot contest a point of law with the Lord Chancellor. I will put this to my noble friend the Leader of the House. He is a member of the Cabinet. Will he give me an absolute pledge, as a member of the Government, that the danger which I foresee if the words are accepted in the form which he wishes will not take place?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: What I am content to do—and I think the noble Marquess will be satisfied—is this. I will represent to the Home Secretary the case that he has put before your Lordships, and I will give an undertaking that, if the danger which the noble Marquess fears is not sufficiently guarded against by the words that already exist in the Amendment, an alteration shall be

487
made in them to carry out the object which the noble Marquess has in view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is quite sufficient.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Then I move the Amendment as it stands on the Paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 97.)

WAR LOAN BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 98.)
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Viscount Sandhurst), and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 99.)

ROYAL VICTORIA INFIRMARY, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended shortly before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment is one by Lord Oranmore and Brown in line 40. It is an Amendment in manuscript.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: By some mistake this Amendment, though handed in yesterday, was not inserted in the list of printed Amendments. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House that I should read it, so that it can be followed. It is in subsection (6), after
488
the word "and" where it first appears, to insert "in the case of a married man." The subsection would then read—
" In fixing minimum rates under this section, the Agricultural Wages Board shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men wages which, in the opinion of the Board, are adequate to promote efficiency, and, in the case of a married man, to enable that man …"
and so forth to the end.
It will be in the recollection of the House that this subsection was not originally in the Bill, but was inserted by the Minister for Agriculture on the Report stage in order to meet the views of certain sections in the House of Commons. The right hon. gentleman, in moving it, stated that he considered it an ideal clause, "indicating to the Wages Board the ideal in view." But after it was introduced into the House it met with so much criticism that Mr. Prothero said he was very much inclined to withdraw it. I am afraid I can hardly hope that any arguments which I can put forward would induce the Government in this House to take the same view, though I must say I should be very glad if that were the result of what I shall urge. I have carefully followed the debate on the subject in the House of Commons, and I must say I find it somewhat difficult to understand. It seems to me that it ranged for a long time round the words "in an ordinary case," and what was the ordinary case of a labourer. It was suggested that a labourer might have fifteen children. Was that, or was that not, an ordinary case? I understand from what the Attorney-General said that that will be considered in the Regulations to be made on the subject. There was one point which struck me particularly. In the whole of the debate in another place, whoever spoke of it, whatever view he might take and to whatever party he might belong, there was one fact that all seemed to agree about, and that was that an agricultural labourer could not possibly be a bachelor. He must be a married man; he might have fifteen children or he might have fewer, but it was essential in considering this clause, that you should provide for him a cottage with five rooms; and it seemed to be almost certain he had a greater or a smaller number of children. To whatever extent that may be the case in England, it certainly is not always the case in Ireland, where there are a great many cases of unmarried labourers. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships

489
with many instances, but I think I may be allowed to say that I looked through my labour sheet the other day and I found that, with the exception of shepherds, I have not got one man engaged, in agriculture who is a married man. I do not say that is so in other departments, such as the gardens and so forth. There may be married men there. But so far as those engaged in agriculture are concerned, there is not one man married. They consist of young men between 17 and 25 years of age, and, on the other hand, of men between 70 and 80 who would be dealt with in the clause which was accepted by the Government.
It may be said "That is the case in Ireland, but it does not apply to England." But I think there ate a great many cases in England. One reads of a great many exemptions for various reasons to men connected with the land. Besides, we must remember that this Bill is not only for the period of the war; it is intended to go on long after the war, and certainly there will be a large number of men employed on the land who are not married. I am very anxious to have an explanation of this, because it seems to me that Mr. Prothero's explanation of if, as an "ideal clause" is right if by that he means a clause which is suited to the views of an idealist. But the object we have in view is, if possible, so to interpret; the clause that it can be carried out by practical men. Either you must take it for granted that every man is married, and give to the young man a preference by giving him the same wages as a married man, or you must differentiate between the wages given to a single man and those given to a married man. We have heard that the Germans intend to take various means to repopulate their country at the end of the war. It is even suggested that polygamy is to be legalised for that purpose. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government intend to do the same thing in a more moral way and bribe young men who are not fighting for the country to be at any rate of some use to it by providing future citizens for the State. If that is not the case, it seems to me that either these young men will live in affluence us compared with the married men, which will naturally cause the married men to be discontented, or that, on the other hand, you must differentiate between the wages which yon give them and those which you give the married men. The result of that will be naturally that all employers
490
will choose the men who are to receive the lower wages. The object of my Amendment is to try and ascertain what are the views of the Government on this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, after (" and ") insert (" in the case of a married man ").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I wish to support the position which has been taken up by Lord Oranmore and Browne. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to call attention to the whole subsection, because really cannot understand the meaning of it. There is nothing to guide one. The words are so general and so vague that I cannot interpret what the subsection means. It reads—
"In fixing minimum rates under this section, the Agricultural Wages Board shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men wages which, in the opinion of the Board, are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family."
In the first instance, you see the subsection begins, "In fixing minimum rates under this section" (that is for a class); but when you go on you come to the case of an able-bodied man. Let us take the case of an able-bodied man with a big family. That, of course, is an individual case, and there cannot be any close rules to govern cases of that kind. All these cases will be individual cases, with different circumstances. What, then, does "an ordinary case" mean? There was a long debate on it in the other House, and nobody seemed to arrive at a real conclusion as 10 what those words mean. The Attorney-General took one view, and Mr. Samuel. I think it was, took a quite different view. The Attorney-General said, when asked whether he would extend these wages "for a family "to a man who had ten children, replied "Certainly not." The clause, he said, was not meant to do it. As to whether that answer was correct or not, I am not in a position to say; but it left the whole thing entirely vague. The word "family," so far as I know, has never been used in legislation before. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard of a case in which the word "family" was used. To use the word "family" for the first time and to give no definition at all, and afford no means of understanding what is meant, really is making confusion ten thousand

491
times worse than confounded. I see that Lord Oranmore proposes to say "wife and children." As the words stood originally, the word "family" might mean his sister-in-law, or it might mean his sister or any one.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Why should it not be his sister-in-law?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What! The man who employs him should pay wages not only for the man himself and his children, but for his sister-in-law!
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Supposing his sister-in-law keeps house for him and he is a widower?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl is supposing a very extraordinary and a very peculiar case.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There are many like it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should say in that case he had better pay the wages of his own housekeeper.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Very likely she is that.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then he ought to pay for her. Does not that occur to the noble Earl?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: He will get it out of this part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Exactly so; he will get that money out of the person who is foolish enough to employ him. Let us suppose the case of a man with ten children. That will be a handicap upon him, because everybody will say when he goes for employment, "How many children have you? "If he says" ten," they will say "I will see whether I cannot get somebody else." I do not think this is to the advantage of the man himself. You are absolutely placing a premium upon the unmarried man, and giving him a great advantage. I believe that what we want is to see large families, but it is quite a different thing when a man who is unfortunate enough to employ the father has to pay for the children even if there be twenty of them. Even if it is intended to limit it to a wife and children and there are ten
492
children, just think what that means. I hope the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will give us some explanation which shall, at all events, show that this clause can be applied with something approaching common sense.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: This clause is a very easy one to pick holes in. It represents ideals and aspirations, and I am not sure that ideals and aspirations are always good to put into an Act of Parliament. I think we want something much more precise than that. Of course, it is quite easy to put forward conundrums regarding matters which will arise under this clause—conundrums which it will be extremely difficult to answer. For instance, what is meant by "the ordinary case," to which reference has been made? Do we mean a bachelor, or do we mean a married man with two children, or with twelve children? It is quite obvious to the most ordinary understanding that nobody could possibly adjust minima rates of wages according to the size of a man's family, and I take it that nothing was further from the intention of the framers of this clause than that one man should get high wages because he had ten children and another man low wages because he had only two. But apart from that, at the present time a bachelor or a man with a small family always gets the pull. He gets the same wages as his comrade, and has fewer people to support. Another hole that you can pick in the clause, if you want to pick holes in it, may be indicated in this way: You lay down here for the able-bodied man a rate of wages which is to be adequate to promote his efficiency and to enable him to maintain himself and his family in accordance with a reasonable standard of comfort; but we have just admitted a clause into the Bill under which men who are not able-bodied are to be employed at lower wages than are to be paid to the able-bodied man. You might infer from that that a non-able-bodied man is to get a rate of wages which is insufficient to maintain him up to an ordinary standard of comfort. I think it is quite easy to pulverise this clause in argument, and I personally am sorry that it was ever put into the Bill. I do not think it will be of any real assistance to the labourer, and I think it will be extremely difficult to the committees to interpret it. Let me add, however, that this clause having been put in the Bill, and representing as it does what is looked to by many

493
people as an essential object—what is called a living wage—I should be rather sorry if your Lordships, by fundamentally altering the clause or by throwing it out of the Bill, were to allow it to go forth that you were opposed to the idea of giving a living wage.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: So far as the clause itself is concerned, what the noble Marquess has said is an accurate interpretation of the views of the Board of Agriculture. It is merely an indication of the standard at which the committee should aim. That is all the effect the clause has. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that we could not possibly accept it. We cannot make any difference between the wages of a married and of a single man. The whole effect of this clause is that payment should be made for work done, and the condition or position of the worker should not be taken into consideration. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord pointed out, that the single man reaps an advantage over the married man. But does he not do that in all the affairs of life so far as the benefits of wages are concerned? The whole of the subsection is really governed by the words "in relation to the nature of his occupation." That, and that only, is the test; and it is on that test that the District Wages Committees will adjudicate, in fixing the wages to be paid. I regret that we cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Duke has just told us what the intention of the Board of Agriculture is, but the intention of the Board of Agriculture has not the force of law, and the Bill does not say how the subsection is to be interpreted. I do not see how you can avoid accepting the words in the way in which they would naturally be interpreted. Really I cannot understand that the words "in an ordinary case" mean what the noble Duke says.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I think it is rather a mistake to have imported the word "family" into the subsection, because "family" might include sisters and cousins and aunts and everybody else who lives with a man. Certainly the last thing in the world His Majesty's Government intended was that If it simply said, "keep a man's home as far as practicable," it would be possible to understand it.
494
It would then mean that a man should be able to live in his house, whether he had a wife and one or two children, with reasonable comfort. When you come to define "family" and say it may include the man's relations and should depend upon how many he has to keep in his cottage, whether they are his own children or relations, then I say you are embarking upon a dangerous undertaking. It seems to me that the Government might say that the man should be able to live in comfort, and leave out altogether the question of the number of his family.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would ask your Lordships to take this case: There is a young man of 19 or 20; his father is dead; he has a lot of young brothers and sisters; and he is practically the sole wage-earner for his mother and the brothers and sisters. There are heaps of cases of that sort. Surely that is a "family." What can define it better than by saying "to maintain his family." This man is maintaining practically his mother and his little brothers and sisters until the latter are able to work for themselves. Surely that is a most meritorious thing for a young man to do. Often young men in this position put off marriage because they cannot afford it till their brothers and sisters grow up and can work for themselves.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: After all, a man is worth so much. Whether he has a family or whether he has not, it does not take away from his efficiency. But I do not know that some of the arguments which have been used are quite sound. I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and other Scotsmen will know—perhaps it is not so much so now, but certainly it was in the past—that in Scotland people sometimes do not marry till they are assured of a family, for the very reason that they think it a great advantage to have children because those children will look after them in their old age. Then there is the man who has been a farm servant and wants to take a small farm. It is an enormous advantage to him to have a family. I do not think one can say it is altogether a disadvantage to a great number of men in the North to have a family. In the old days—I am sorry to say the custom has gone out now—the father used to give his family a good education to start with, and he looked

495
to his children to keep him in his old age. That is a very fine system, and has lead to a great deal of enterprise and advancement. But the whole point of the matter is this. Each individual has his own value, and whether he has a family or whether he has not really does not affect the question. It seems to me that this subsection, however well-intentioned, is liable to lead to a great deal of misconception and confusion, and it is not at all desirable to have it in the Bill. There is the other point of view. I think there is a certain disadvantage in a large family when the children are very young. When they get to a certain age, however, they are a positive advantage, because they can earn a certain amount and they are very often useful on the farm; in fact, many people prefer to engage men who have children rather than men who have not. I think it is as broad as it is long. It seems to me that this subsection is very vague. It is almost impossible for any arbitrator or any Wages Board to interpret it, and it would be much better if it were not in the Bill.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am not quite clear what is the proper interpretation of this subsection. When I read it I thought the meaning was that the District Committee, in fixing a minimum wage, should take into consideration how much a labourer required to live in ordinary comfort with a wife in a cottage; but from some of the speeches which we have just heard I rather gather that the view of some noble Lords is that the District Committee is to differentiate between different workmen according to the size of their families. I do not take it that this is the intention of the subsection. I understand it is only a general direction to the District Committee for fixing a general rate of wage for the whole of their area, and that view I think is supported by what fell from the noble Duke when he said that the intention of the subsection was to fix a rate of wage according to the capacity of the man for work and not according to the number of his family. I hope that the principle of the Bill is that a workman is to be paid according to the amount of work he is able to do, and not according to the size of his family or whether he is supporting his relatives.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I understand that this subsection was put in at the
496
last moment on Report, and we all know that in another place very little time was given to Report. This subsection, therefore, was put in very hurriedly at the last moment, and I do not think it represents the considered opinion of the Government. It does not seem to me that it makes any great difference either one way or the other.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I agree with what fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, when he said it would be extremely undesirable, after this subsection had been unanimously accepted by the House of Commons, that this House should throw it out. I do not suggest that anything of the kind should be done. The object of my Amendment was rather to define the meaning of the subsection, which seemed to me to be extremely vague. As has been the case with so much recent legislation, a great deal is left to Regulation instead of being put into the Bill itself; and after what the noble Duke has told us, we must depend upon the good intention of those who are going to carry this out. The provisions of this Bill are to my mind, extremely unsatisfactory, but I am afraid there is no alternative. Owing to the fact of this Amendment not having been inserted in the Marshalled List of Amendments, through not having been handed in at the Table early enough. I am afraid some noble Lords thought that the Amendment which was being moved was the one on the Paper in my name. I do not know whether it would be convenient, as discussion has taken place on that Amendment, that I should move it now; but perhaps it would be more in order if I were to withdraw my present Amendment first, and then proceed to move the one on the Paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEthen moved to amend subsection (6) by omitting the word "family." and inserting "wife and children." The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to define the meaning of the word" family," which seems to me extremely vague as it is in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, seemed to think that a sister who lived in the same house as a man and kept house for him should be taken into consideration by the Committee in fixing the wage which that man was to be paid. I should like

497
to put another case—a case that very often occurs in Ireland—and it is this. When a father and mother who have considerable means approach the age of 70 they begin to think they will soon be able to receive the old-age pension, and they immediately hand over the holding to their son, obtaining an undertaking from him that he will support them for the rest of their lives. It seems to me that directly they do that they are part of his family, and that this will be taken into consideration by the Committee when they are settling the wages that ought to be paid. I am very anxious, if possible, to have it explained what a family means. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that a man should provide for his wife and children, but it would be extremely hard if, in fixing what his wages are to be, his other relations should be taken into consideration, particularly in such a case as I have mentioned when special means have been taken to obtain money from the State. I hope the noble Duke will be able to give me some satisfaction on this point, and to accept the Amendment, which seems to me to point out in a very clear way what an ordinary family is.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("family") and insert ("wife and children").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope the House will not agree to what is proposed by my noble friend on the Cross Benches The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, explained very clearly that there were a number of cases of deserving men, such as that of a young man who supports his mother and his brothers and sisters. His claim to consideration is quite as great as that of the man who has married young and has a number of children. There are also other cases which might be named. If it were the question of making a definite allowance of so much for each child or so much for each relation—including aunts and nephews and cousins—that would be rather a different thing; but, as the noble Lord on the Front Bench has stated, it is merely intended to be a general guide to the Committees, a kind of direction according to which they are to work. It seems to me it is quite safe to leave the words as they are.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: No one has any objection to general guides if they lead you into right tracks, but what I should like to put before the House is this. What you are affirming now is that a certain standard of comfort should be secured by wages, quite independent of the qualifications or the capacity of the person receiving that standard of comfort, which we may call x because it is perfectly vague. That seems to me a rat her dangerous method. Louis Blanc wrote a book,L'organisation du Travail, which had extraordinary success in France. The basis of that book was that everybody was to contribute to the service of the State according to their capacity and to receive from it according to their needs. As people's needs exceed their capacities, one can easily imagine that it was a popular notion. I agree with what Lord Oranmore and with what the noble Marquess said; but I should not like to see us put on one side a subsection of this kind, which is apparently for general guidance in a generous if novel treatment of domestic life. After all, you cannot get away from the fact that what you are practically doing is that you are going to affirm an x standard of comfort for everybody employed in agriculture, quite independent of their capacity or their qualifications. I think that half this difficulty arises from that horrible word "able-bodied" which you have in the Bill. Apparently now anybody who is able-bodied is entitled to these particular privileges, quite outside what his qualifications are as an agricultural labourer.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (7).—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out (" Agricultural Wages Board ") and insert (" district wages committee ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The effect of the next Amendment is that if the District Wages Committee fail to settle the wage, then the Board of Agriculture shall transfer the matter to the central authority with power to fix the

499
wage, and the Central Committee must consult with the District Wage Committee before the wage is fixed. This is taken verbatim from the Scottish system, and it is in the Second Schedule of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, at end insert as a new subsection:
"( ) If a district wages committee fail within a period prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, to fix minimum rates of wages for time-work within their district, the Board shall refer the question of fixing such rates to the Agricultural Wages Board; and thereupon the powers and duties of the district wages committee to fix such rates shall, so far as required for the purposes of the reference, be transferred to the Agricultural Wages Board; and any rate fixed under such a reference by the Agricultural Wages Board after consultation with the district wages committee shall be deemed to be the minimum rate fixed under this Act."—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, at end insert as a new subsection:
"( ) Nothing in this part of this Act shall prejudice the operation of any agreement entered into or custom existing before the passing of this Act for the payment of wages at a rate higher than the minimum rate fixed under this part of this Act.)"—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The next Amendment is purely consequential on the term "able-bodied workman." The expression "able bodied," in its application to any workman, means a workman who is not incapable.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11, leave out ("man") and insert ("in its application to any workman") and leave out ("any male") and insert ("a").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
LORD HARRIS: With regard to this Amendment, does the expression "able-bodied man" mean something different in some other part of the Bill, for the noble Duke has moved that "in this Part of the Act the expression able-bodied man means," etc. Why do you not put it in the definition clause?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not know whether I am right, but I do not think the able bodied question arises except in this Part of the Bill; and therefore it is a reasonable limitation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not move the Amendment in my name to leave out Clause 5 and insert a new clause, as my views have been met.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 16 and 17, leave out (" Agricultural Wages Board ") and insert (" district wages committee ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 21, leave out ("Board") and insert ("committee")
Page 6, line 26, leave out (" Board ") and insert (" committee")
Page 6, line 27, leave out (" Board ") and insert (" committee").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, leave out ("Agricultural Wages Board ") and insert ("district wages committee").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, leave out (" Board ") and insert ("committee").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Rents not to be raised in consequence of Act.
8.—(1) The rent payable under any contract of tenancy made or varied after the passing of this Act in respect of an agricultural holding shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, not exceed such rent as could have been obtained if Part I of this Act had not been in force, and any question as to whether the rent payable under such a contract is in excess of the rent permitted by this section or as to the amount, of the excess shall be determined by a single arbitrator under

501
and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908:
Provided that the rent payable under a contract of tenancy shall not be deemed to be in excess of that permitted under this section unless notice requiring the question to be referred to arbitration has been served on the landlord within one year from the commencement or variation of the tenancy.
(2) If on any such arbitration it is determined that the rent payable under the contract of tenancy is in excess of the amount permitted under this section, the contract shall, as from the commencement or variation of the tenancy, have effect as if the rent payable under the contract was reduced by the amount of the excess.
(3) This section shall not affect any proceedings by a landlord for enforcing payment of any rent except so far as the rent has before the commencement of such proceedings been determined in manner herein before provided to be in excess of the rent permitted by this section, but any rent in excess of the rent permitted by this section which is paid or recovered before the award of the arbitrator shall be recoverable by the tenant from the landlord by way of deduction from rent or otherwise.
(4) In this section expressions have the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) desires me to move for him the Amendment standing in his name to Clause 8. It is to insert, in subsection (1), after "Part I," the words "and Part II." I think noble Lords will see that this is only reasonable. There are two arguments for introducing these words. One is that it brings the Bill as it affects England into line with the provisions which are already in the Bill affecting Scotland and Ireland. The other reason seems to be that it is only fair, if you are not going to take into account the effect of Part I, which would be favourable to the landlord, that you should not take into account the effect of Part II, which would be rather against the landlord, inasmuch as the raising of agricultural wages may have an effect unfavourable to the rents. I do not know whether I have made the point quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Part 7, line 6, after ("Part I") insert ("and Part II.")—Viscount Milner.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I confess I do not very well understand this Amendment, although, no doubt, it is my fault. I was very much surprised when I saw the Amendment on the Paper, because I could not conceive how by any possibility a landowner could think that he could ask for more rent because his tenant had to
502
pay more wages. The two things do not seem to be cause and effect. I can understand it might be thought that a landlord might ask for more rent because the tenant was going to get more for his corn; but I understand now that the intention is something quite different.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It is exactly the opposite.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It never occurred to me that that was necessary. I understand that this is an indication that the fact that a tenant has to pay higher wages is not to be in any way a deterrent to the landlord from raising the rent—rather, that he is to be encouraged to raise the rent because the tenant pays more wages.
LORD PARMOOR: I sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be adopted. The words of the clause as it now stands are: "The rent payable under any contract of tenancy made or varied after the passing of this Act in respect of an agricultural holding shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, not exceed such rent as could have been obtained if Part I of this Act had not been in force." It is quite intelligible that the rent should not be raised because there are minimum prices as regards wheat and oats; but what do you mean by introducing Part II into this clause? We are dealing with increasing, and not diminishing, rents. If you introduce Part II you introduce the question of the effect of wages upon rents, and I do not think that question should be admitted. I do not think any question should be admitted, as regards the restriction on the raising of legal rents, except the specific question of the guaranteed minimum prices. If you once get away from that you get into the whole region of rents fixed, not on some commercial basis, but fixed by some outside authority. I cannot conceive that being in the landlord's favour, and therefore I hope that these words will not be inserted. This matter has been very fully considered by persons interested in agriculture, and it has been most carefully pointed out that it was strictly limited to Part I; and it was only because it was strictly limited to Part I that it was in any form acceptable at all. Otherwise you at once get into the region of rents fixed by some outside body,

503
and I hope you will not introduce the principle of fixing rents in connection with wages.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I confess that I, like my noble friends, am somewhat pazzled by this sudden interpolation of Part II into this part of the Bill. It almost seems as though it were an attempt—I am not willing to believe it could be so—to establish something in the nature of a Kent Court, to allow the tenant to appeal and ask to have his rent reduced in respect of his contract of tenancy because under Part II he has been compelled to pay a higher wage to his labourers. It seems hardly credible that at this time of day such a suggestion could be made, but it is very difficult to associate a different meaning with the proposal that Part II should be introduced here at all, and I confess that so far I do not follow it.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I should like to support the Amendment. I consider that the explanation of the noble Viscount is quite clear, and that his arguments are perfectly logical. The arbitrator, in determining the rent, is not to take, into consideration Part I, which might have the effect of raising the rent; but, as the clause stands, he will have to take into consideration Part II, which by fixing an economic political wage might have the effect of reducing the rent. Part II, we have been told, is a corollary of Part I of the Bill. Part I guarantees minimum prices, and as a corollary of Part I, Part II guarantees a minimum wage. It seems to me that if the arbitrator is not to take into consideration Part I, he therefore should not take into consideration Part II. I understand that the intention of the Government is that the arbitrator, in fixing the rent, should fix it on a basis as if this Bill had not come into force.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: The noble Earl appears to me altogether to forget that the corollary to which he refers has disappeared altogether, because since the minimum price on the one hand and the minimum wage on the other were supposed to be corollaries, we have had imposed upon us during the war—and we were originally promised by the Prime Minister that they were not to come until after the war—these Wages Boards; and, as I said upon the Second Reading, having in view the fact that 100 Members in the House of
504
Commons have already voted for an increase of the fixed minimum wage from 25 s. to 30 s., we cannot suppose that it is not possible that the Wages Boards or some of them, when they are set up, will do the same thing. If it is done in one case, that will be quite enough. Neighbouring Boards will insist on the same treatment, and so it will spread all through the country. Therefore the corollary of which the noble Earl speaks disappears altogether. Apart from that, I have heard enough to convince me that no reason whatever has been advanced why this Amendment should be inserted in this part of the Bill. I entirely agree with my noble friends on this question, and I hope that in no circumstances will this Amendment be passed.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: May I ask a question? I will put the case of a grass farm such as is to be found in my part of the country, let on a yearly tenancy as all our farms are. The tenant gives me notice, and he goes out. Things are doing very well; sheep are up, cattle are up, breeding is good, milking good, and feeding good. I advertise that farm for letting again in the newspapers in the usual way. The outgoing tenant shows the premises, and the applicants are referred to my agent for any further revision. I would probably have in these days eight or ten, and perhaps a great many more, tenders for that farm at certain prices. In a country which is entirely grass and fell where cultivation will be limited to only two big extra potato patches and two or three triangular, curious amorphous patches of oats, it is quite clear that the price which I should be paid for that farm would have nothing to do with either Part I or Part II of this Bill. I look over the tenders, and it is a hundred to one that I do not accept the highest. I take the highest if I can, but if I find the second or third is from a better man, I take the lower offer rather than the higher. Only last Saturday I let two farms at a considerable increase of rent. What I want to know is whether under this clause I am entitled to take the highest rent, or whether I am fixed down unless I can prove, probably by some expensive process, that I derive no benefit by reason of Part I.
VISCOUNT MILNER: You can take the higher rent.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Then you do not stereotype rent? Who is going to prove the higher rent?
VISCOUNT MILNER: The whole object of the clause is that rents should not be affected by this Bill either way.
LORD PARMOOR: This clause has nothing to do with that, but with restrictions on the raising of agricultural rents. It was thought that agricultural rents might be raised merely on the basis of the minimum prices, and therefore there was a restriction against raising agricultural rents as regards that particular matter; but what the noble Viscount suggested, if I may say so, that Part II might be in favour of the landlords, is quite impossible. This clause deals with restrictions upon the raising of rent. I think it is a wrong principle to put this as a matter between landlords and tenants. You bring the whole question of wages before an outside board, and therefore you are practically constituting a Rent Board. What else is it? If you confine the clause to restrictions upon the raising of agricultural rents because of the advantage given by minimum prices, I can understand it; but beyond that I am at sea.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I should like to ask whether, in the case of a new tenancy of a farm, the old tenant having died and a new tenancy arising, it is open to the landlord to raise the rent if it is not now and before the introduction of this Bill a full economic rent—to raise it to an economic rent, not affected by the provisions of this Bill; because we know that in many parts of the country farmers have been sitting, perhaps for two generations, at the lower rents of the 'eighties, which the landlord has not been willing to raise but which he might be entitled to raise on a new tenancy.
VISCOUNT MILNER: That is precisely what we are driving at. The right of the landlord to raise the rent to a figure which is economically justified should not be affected, either way, by the provisions of this Bill.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: And without going to an arbitrator?
VISCOUNT MILNER: Certainly; and if an appeal is made to arbitration, then the
506
arbitrator is not entitled to take into consideration either Part I or Part II. If you go to an arbitrator it is not to be a good argument for raising the rent that the tenant has got Part I, and it is not to be a good argument against raising the rent that there is the operation of Part II.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In no case can a new intending tenant go to the arbitrator?
VISCOUNT MILNER: I would rather not answer that off-hand.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Do you mean by new intending tenant where the landlord has fixed the rent, saying "I will only let at a certain price," or do you mean by open tender? There is an enormous difference. In my part of the country people send in their offer and the landlord accepts the offer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think it applies in either case.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I think I am right in saying it has been clearly stated by the Government that the landlord is perfectly entitled to raise rent on account of increased tithe, drainage, rates, and other operations not included in the Bill; because every one must admit that the question of tithe is not affected by the Bill at all, and I understand the question of tithe does not depend upon this Bill. Therefore to meet the tithe question the landlord would be perfectly justified in raising the rent for those special charges. I think it is important that this should be clearly understood before we part with the Bill. Also, in my opinion, the importation of the question of wages into the question of rent raising, in any way, is a very dangerous matter. I do not quite gather, in spite of what has been said, that the question of wages might not be imported into the matter in some way or other, and I think it should be made quite clear that the question of wages ought not to influence in any way the question of rent.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It is intended that wages should not enter into the question, and that the landlord should not be prejudiced by a rise of wages. Of course, he is entitled to take into account tithes.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quite understand that the intention of the Amendment is to protect the landlord. At the same time, I think it is so dangerous to have Part II brought in here, and it so lends itself to misunderstanding, that in spite of the good intentions of the Government I would rather not have this mark of their favour.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think your Lordships' attention should be drawn to the provisions of the Bill with regard to Scotland and Ireland. If you will look at Clause 17, subsection (7), which relates to Scotland, you will find, paragraph (f)—
" Part III of this Act shall have effect subject to and without prejudice to the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1911, and in fixing the rent of a holding the Scottish Land Court shall not take into consideration the operation of Part I or Part II of this Act."
The second subsection of the same clause, which relates to Ireland, contains this provision—
" Part III of this Act in its application to Ireland shall have effect subject and without prejudice to the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, and, in fixing the judicial rent of a holding after the passing of this Act, the court shall not take into consideration the operation of Part I or Part II of this Act as respects the holding or tenant."
As I understand it, these provisions were introduced with regard to Scotland and Ireland to prevent the landlord on the one hand saying "You are getting these advantages with regard to growing corn, and therefore ought to pay a higher rent "; and, on the other hand, to protect the landlord against any possible claim by the tenant that inasmuch as he had to pay more wages to the labourers under the Act be could not afford to pay so much Tent as otherwise he might have paid. The object of these provisions was to secure that the rent should be fixed just as if this Bill had not been passed; and the only object of the present Amendment is to put the English landlord and tenant into the same position as the Scottish or Irish landlords and tenants under Clause 17.
LORD PARMOOR: In answer to the noble and learned Lord I would point out that the provisions to which he has referred are very special, and say that the Court shall not take into consideration Part I OF Part II, which is entirely different from the proposal here—that they shall take
508
into consideration Part I and Part II. I think it would be going too far in the interest of the landlord to do that here, but it would be more satisfactory.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It comes to the same thing. Rents are not to exceed "such rents as could have been obtained if Part I and Part II of this Act had not been in force."
LORD PARMOOR: Then it ought to be "shall not take into consideration" those provisions.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I quite understand and fully believe what we have been told as to the intentions of the Government, but this is not a question which ought to depend upon intentions at all; nor do I think, with all respect to the Lord Chancellor, that the references to Scotland and Ireland are strictly ad rem. We are now dealing with the question of England and rents in England, and the juxtaposition of rents and wages. I am one of those who hold, as the President of the Board of Agriculture has said over and over again, that if there is an increase of wages, even to 25 s. per week, there will be very little, if any, profit in the transaction for the farmer of agricultural land. If there is a rise of wages under the Wages Board, which I think is perfectly certain, what will be the next question which will arise? It will be said, "It does not pay; then lower the rent." That is the next question which is certain to arise, and against that we have every right to be guarded; and the only way to be guarded is that we should reject this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In Ireland every holding is subject to the Land Court. In Scotland certain holdings are subject to the Land Court. Therefore the provisions of Clause 17 are necessary in those cases, but they are not necessary in the case of Scottish holdings which are not subject to the Land Court, and they are not necessary in England, because, thank God, we have not got a Land Court and do not want to see the embryo of it. We were perfectly contented with the Bill as it stood. We do not want Part II put in here at all.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The Government will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, after (" notice ") insert (" in writing ").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Power to Enforce proper Cultivation.
9.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, if in any case they are of opinion that any land is not being cultivated in such manner as the Board think best in the interests of the country, may serve a notice on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with directions given by the Board, and where compliance with any such directions, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, involves any breach of or non-compliance with any covenant or condition of the contract of tenancy, the Board may in the same or any subsequent notice so served direct that any such covenant or condition, so far as it interferes with compliance with such directions, shall be suspended, and may provide for securing to the landlord such payments or other benefits (if any) as the Board think just on account of any profit or benefit derived or expected to be derived by the tenant by reason of the suspension of the covenant or condition, and any such provision of the notice shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy.
(2) As soon as practicable after the service of any such notice on a tenant a copy of the notice shall be served on the landlord.
(3) If, in the opinion of the Board, the occupier fails to cultivate the land in accordance with directions so given, the Board, after the prescribed notice, may, if the occupier in default is a tenant, make such order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorising the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, as required by the Board, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the order, and, if the occupier in default is not a tenant enter on and take possession of the sand or of the holding of which it forms part for such time, and (either themselves or by any person authorised by them) do all such things, as appear to the Board necessary or desirable for the cultivation of the land of which possession has been taken, or for adapting such land for cultivation.
Any such order of the Board may contain such provisions as the Board think fit for adjusting the relations of landlord and tenant where the tenancy is determined; and any such provision of the order shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy.
(4) Where the Board have entered on my land under this provision they may, after the pre scribed notice, let the land, or any part thereof, for any term not exceeding five years on such terms and conditions as the Board think fit, and at the best rent that, having regard to such terms and conditions, can reasonably be obtained:
Provided that—

(a) before any contract of tenancy is executed by the Board under this provision a draft thereof shall be sent to the owner of the land and a reasonable opportunity afforded him of objecting to any provision therein; and

510

(b) a copy of the contract of tenancy shall be sent to such owner as soon as possible after its execution.

(5) Any notice given by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purposes of this section, which directs the suspension of any covenant or condition shall be a sufficient defence to any action or other proceeding in respect of any breach of, or non-compliance with, the covenant or condition so far as the breach or non-compliance is authorised by the notice of suspension.
(6) When the Board at any time withdraw from possession of any land of which they have taken possession under this section,

(a) they shall before withdrawing give the prescribed notice in writing of their intention to the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land; and

(b) they may recover from the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land such amount as represents the value to him of all acts of cultivation or adaptation for cultivation executed by the Board; and

(c) the land shall be subject to any tenancy created by the Board in like manner as if the tenancy had been created by the person who would but' for the tenancy have been entitled to resume occupation of the land.

(7) 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 exorcise of the powers as may be prescribed by the Board, be entitled to be paid by the Board such amount as represents the loss.
(8) The amount recoverable or payable by the Board under subsection (6) or subsection (7) of this section shall be determined in each case in default of agreement by a single arbitrator under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908: Provided that, for the purpose of any arbitration under this provision, the arbitrator shall be nominated, in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institution.
(9) The Board may, with respect to any land, or land in any district, authorise, subject to such appeal to the Board as may be prescribed, any person or body of persons, to exercise on behalf of the Board any of the powers of the Board under this Part of this Act, and may if they think fit constitute a body for the purpose and prescribe the procedure of, and the authentication of any notice or other instrument issued by, any such body.
(10) The powers conferred by this Part of this Act shall not be exerciseable so long as the powers exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country under the Defence of the Realm Regulations remain in force.
(11) In this section the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Board.
The EARL of SELBORNE The EARL of SELBORNE moved to omit from subsection (1) the opening words, "The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries,

511
if in any case they are of opinion that any land is not being cultivated in such manner as the Board think best in the interests of the country, may serve a notice on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with directions given by the Board," and to insert the words in his Amendment.
The noble Earl said: I do not think the Amendment which I have put down requires a very long explanation from me. All of your Lordships who have studied this Bill will at any rate appreciate the intention with which I have framed this Amendment. As Clause 9 stands at present, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, if in any case they are of opinion that any land is not being cultivated as the Board thinks best in the interests of the country, may serve a notice and there is no appeal at all against that notice. I have tried to differentiate in my Amendment between two motives which may reasonably actuate the Board of Agriculture in the action which they take. In the first place, they may be of opinion that the land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry. I am not particularly wedded to those words, but I think you will understand what is meant by them. I felt that upon that subject there ought to be an appeal from the Board of Agriculture. The Board may be quite right, but in a matter of this importance I felt strongly, and many of my noble friends with whom I have consulted agreed with me, that there should be an appeal to an arbitrator appointed by a wholly neutral body, such as the President of the Surveyors' Institute. So my Amendment provides that if notice is given—if action is taken—by the Board of Agriculture because in their opinion the land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, in that case there shall be an appeal to an arbitrator.
Then there is the second class of case, where there is no question of good farming or of good estate management, but where, in the opinion of the Government of the day acting through the Board of Agriculture, the land is not being put to that use which is essential for the security of the nation. Among all your Lordships, nobody dislikes more than I do the idea that any Government Department should tell any one of us in what particular direction our land should be cultivated or how we should manage it, but I have confessed already in your Lordships' House and on the public platform that in my absolute conviction the
512
question of food production is now, and in the future is going to be, as much a matter of national security as the provision of men for the Army and ships for the Fleet—in fact, the two things are inseparable parts of national security. Therefore, if an insufficient amount of corn is being grown in the country, the Government of the day must have the power of saying that more corn must be grown. Of course, it follows, as a corollary, that the Government shall make corn-growing profitable, and that is the object of the guarantee. If the guarantee is not sufficiently high at the end of the period, then, in my judgment, it ought to be raised when the time comes, because this Bill asks the farmer to follow a method of agriculture by which he may be losing money. I have said that, in your Lordships' House, about meat production, and of course the same thing is true about corn production. If you ask me my position on the question of corn production in England, my answer is that it is as necessary an element of our national existence as the Navy itself, and you will then understand why I, for one, am not able to say that the Government should not have the power in reserve of putting the necessary pressure upon the landowner and the farmer as regards the method of cultivation.
The question arises at once—ought there to be an appeal to an arbitrator on this question of the method of cultivation, the mode of cultivation, as well as on the question of good husbandry? I honestly confess, after very careful consideration. I do not see how there can be such an appeal. The Government may be wrong, but I do not see how there can be an appeal from their opinion as to the amount of corn required in the country, any more than an appeal from their opinion as to the number of ships required by the Navy; and, therefore, in that case, I do not provide that there shall be an appeal from the Board of Agriculture to an arbitrator. I have dealt with my two Amendments, which stand together, in one speech, because I felt sure that that would be in accordance with your Lordships' convenience. If I have not made my meaning perfectly clear I shall be glad to supplement my remarks. I hope the Government will accept this. It is a very substantial improvement, from the landowners' and farmers' point of view, on the clauses as they now stand. At the present moment there is no appeal either on the question of

513
policy or on the question of fact. This Amendment gives an appeal on the question of fact, and leaves the full responsibility on the question of policy to the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 30, leave out from beginning to (" and ") in page 8, line 3, and insert (" the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries it in any case they are of opinion—

" (a) that any land is not being cultivated according to the rides of good husbandry; or

" (b) that for the purpose of increasing in the national interest the production of food the mode of cultivating any land or the use to which any land is being put should be changed;

may serve notice on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate or use the land in accordance with such directions as the Board may give for securing that the cultivation shall be according to the rules of good husbandry or for securing the necessary change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of the land, as the case may be.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say a word or two on one part of the argument used by the noble Earl who has just spoken. I suppose we are all agreed that the main object of this Bill is for the purpose of increasing, in the national interest, the production of food. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that, on a question of policy of that kind, there is no room for an appeal to an arbitrator, and I would not suggest it for a moment. The practical difference arises in this way—one is, how the Bill operates. A particular farmer on whom a requisition is made says, "So far from the requisition on me leading to an increase in the production of food in the national interest, it will, quite certainly, in my opinion, diminish the amount of corn produced; I know all the conditions of my farm; I know the capacity of my fields—and you are wrong, if you want to have increased production of food, to try and impose upon me a mode of cultivation which, in my view, will have exactly the contrary result." The farmer may or may not be wrong in the view he takes, but it is a point of view which I think should be, submitted to an outside arbitrator, and it is only fair, considering that the farmer has a responsibility for the way in which he conducts his industry, that such an appeal should be allowed.
Let me put it the other way for a moment.
514
If you have no appeal you introduce bureaucracy in an unlimited form. There is no restriction whatever on Government interference in any particular case; and, moreover, even if a man may think a particular Order is subversive of increased production of food, he is bound to obey it. You may as well say of any industry in the country that, where any official body thinks there can be increased production in some other way than the private business man, they should be allowed to direct him, as a matter of public policy, how he is to carry on his business. I think that is a monstrous and far-reaching proposition. I entirely agree with a great deal the noble Earl said, but I do not agree with his conclusions. Why cannot you have arbitration, an appeal, on this point? Is the suggestion made by the Government really one which is likely to increase, in the national interest, the production of food? Is not the fanner, the man who knows his land, to be heard when he says, "You are making a mistake; you are asking me to do something which will defeat the very object you have in view "? Surely that is a matter which ought to be referred to some independent body. I admit that this might be introduced as regards any industry. There is nothing special in agriculture. The agriculturist knows as much about his private business as any other private individual; and when he is protesting and says yon are ordering him to do something wrong, which will not produce the results you require but exactly the contrary, what objection is there to arbitration on a point of that kind? There is no public policy involved. I agree with the noble Earl that the object is to increase production. But the question is, Will what you are telling him to do bring about that result or not? You may destroy every industry from the private owner's point of view by proposals of that kind. I cannot assent to the proposition that a matter of that nature is not one for arbitration.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I quite agree that there is a case for arbitration of some sort, and I go a long way with the noble Earl—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That would come in on the Second Amendment.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Yes; on the second Amendment. But we are considering them together, and I should like

515
words of this sort put in at the end of the noble Earl's Amendment: "Provided always that such directions have regard to the farming Custom and Practice of the countryside." If you have an arbitrator who knows the country, your man would be safe. If your Lordships do not mind a brief object lesson I will tell you of a man who farmed under me. He had a farm of 25 acres of very rough land; it was practically all heather, and there was very little grass. He was an extremely good poultry breeder, and amongst other things used to breed gamecocks, which he sold in Lancashire. He had three or four very fine strains of game. In addition to this special knowledge he was a "knacker," and used to buy up all the old horses, boil them down, and put the bones and blood on to the lean land. Then he used to put the poultry into inverted packing cases, place them on the lean land, and between the blood and the bones and the movement of the poultry in the inverted packing cases, he turned that farm into a very valuable little holding. I have little doubt that if his operations had been scrutinised by an official of the Board of Agriculture from Whitehall, he would have been told that he was not satisfying the needs of cultivation which are put forward under the Bill, and I suppose would have got into great trouble, and I should have got into trouble also as his landlord. I think that in the case of all these directions there ought to be words inserted providing that the directions given shall have due regard to the custom and practice of the farm in the particular countryside to which they refer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think there is much force in what my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale has said on the point of paying special deference to the farming customs indifferent parts of the country, and I cannot help thinking that in this matter there is considerable ground for applying some kind of appeal, even on what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, described as the question of policy. It seems to me that his argument was not quite apposite in this sense, that he applied it in general terms, whereas its application has to be made to the case of the particular individual. He said truly that it is quite as necessary to increase the supply of food produced in this country as it is to maintain a paramount Navy. That is perfectly true as a general proposition, but that does not
516
necessarily console the individual who is told to deal with his farm in a particular way. You do not say to a man, "You have four sons; two of them must go into the Navy." No special pressure of that kind is put on individuals; and it is the risk of hardship which may occur to a particular individual in respect of a particular holding that I think ought to be guarded against; and the noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Ribblesdale) has put that in forcible terms. In the Irish case, if noble Lords will look at the Schedule they will see that there is a distinct appeal to a tribunal specially constituted for the purpose. I am not prepared to say that this is a matter which in all cases could be referred to a single arbitrator. In my opinion it would be desirable that at the Report stage some form of appeal should be suggested—as I have no doubt my noble friend would be prepared to do, from what he said—in order that these particular cases might not altogether escape from the kind of review we think they ought to obtain.
LORD HINDLIP: I cannot for the life of me see what the Government are afraid of in reference to good husbandry. You are going to give an appeal as regards fact, but not as regards policy. I should have thought an appeal as regards fact is far more important than on a question of policy; yet in the noble Earl's Amendment there is no appeal on a question of policy. You may have every farmer told what he must do with his land. I do not think this kind of thing is done in any other country. I am sure it is not done in France. No one has interfered with the method of cultivation in France or in Holland, and they are far shorter of food than we are. I have been in a good many countries in the last three years, and I have not found a country with more food than we have. Surely you are going to take into consideration the teachings of past generations as regards what is suitable and what is not suitable in the various districts of the country; what the land has been proved to be best suited for, and what the buildings are suited for. You may have some crank or other persons bullying the Board of Agriculture, for political purposes, and destroying the whole value of the farms and buildings. You have everybody in the country now saying what your Lordships have said for many years, that all that the farmer requires is confidence

517
and capital and surely by not giving an appeal you are preventing capital being put into the land and destroying the confidence of the farmer. I hope that at a later stage the Government will reconsider their position and give some appeal on the point of policy.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I cannot see any objection whatever to arbitration on a question of policy, nor do I think the Government see any objection, because I would like to direct the attention of your Lordships to the fact that in the case of Ireland there is arbitration provided for on the question of policy. In the Third Schedule of the Bill it is stated—
" It shall be the duty of every occupier of arable land to cultivate and maintain in cultivation a portion of the arable land held by him, not less in extent than the minimum tillage portion as prescribed by an Order of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland."
That is a question of policy. It is the minimum tillage of each farm, and it is a direction that each farmer shall cultivate his arable land in a certain proportion. That is policy; it is not good husbandry. And the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal has down an Amendment giving arbitration on this question of policy as applied to Ireland. There can be no objection in principle to giving arbitration on questions of policy, and why some of the good things which are occasionally allowed to Ireland should not be allowed to other parts of the United Kingdom I cannot see.
THE MARQUESS COT LANSDOWNE: I hope the Government will consider whether they cannot—perhaps not this evening—discover a form of words which would give some kind of redress to the victims who are going to be immolated on the shrine of policy in this matter. It is really a hard case. Nobody can allege that they have failed in a sense of patriotic duty. They have merely cultivated their land in what seemed to them the best and most effectual manner, and if they are to be suddenly ordered to change their method of cultivation and not to have any chance of putting in a word to show that the application of the policy, on a particular portion of their land, is injudicious and unwise, I think the case is one of great hardship indeed; and I would rather like to suggest to the Government, as the hour is getting late, that we might adjourn and consider this point when we meet again to-morrow.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think there is great force in the suggestion of the noble Marquess, and on its own merits the Government will gladly agree to the suggestion. There is another reason why we, should adjourn. I understand that a number of other Amendments have come in, which have not yet been placed on the Paper or circulated, which come between the Amendment of the noble Earl—the one we are now discussing—and the second Amendment on which the debate has largely turned. I propose that we adjourn the discussion at the present moment and resume to-morrow. It was proposed to assemble at 3.30 in the afternoon to-morrow, but the discussion has proceeded so satisfactorily to-day that—
A NOBLE LORD: You had better say 3.30.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: If it is the desire of your Lordships, we will meet again at 3.30 to-morrow. May I say one word about the other business. If we conclude, as I hope we shall, the Committee stage to-morrow, I propose to ask your Lordships to take the Report stage and Third Reading on Friday. To-morrow there are two other Bills coming before your Lordships, neither of which is likely to take up any portion of your time, but which I think I ought to mention. There is the Second Reading of the War Loan Bill, the First Reading of which has already been taken; the other business is the Second Reading of a small measure which will be in the charge of Lord Sandhurst—the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Bill. It is a non-controversial measure which your Lordships will have no hesitation in passing We shall then take the Report and Third Reading of the Corn Production Bill on Friday; and I should like your Lordships on that day to give a Second Reading to the Munitions of War Bill, which is now being considered in another place. That Bill, which it had not been intended to proceed with, is now being taken in an amended form as an agreement between all classes of employers and the representatives of labour, and I hope your Lordships will be willing to pass it into law before we adjourn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: At what hour shall we meet on Friday?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think the understanding was that we should meet at 3.30 on Friday as well as to-morrow, and I think perhaps it will be best to adhere to that arrangement.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Had you not better say 12 o'clock on Friday.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I will consider the suggestion of the noble Marquess and make an announcement
520
to-morrow. I ought to say that for the purposes I have named in connection with these Bills I shall have to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for to-morrow and on Friday.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past three o'clock.