CORN PRODUCTION BILL. (Hansard, 15 August 1917)

HL Deb 15 August 1917 vol 26 cc487-520 487

§ 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 BROWNE
then 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.

498

§ 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.

500

§ 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 25s. to 30s., 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.

505

§ 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.

507

§ 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 25s. 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.

509

§ 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
(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 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.

518

§ 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?

519

§ 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.