Lords Sitting of 21 August 1917

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Cleric of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Petition for a Bill have not been complied with:
South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Company.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee forthwith.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the
South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Company
be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS (POWER AND HEATING) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a; referred to the Examiners and to be read 2a on Wednesday the 17 th of October.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Trade (Foreign Countries and British Possessions)—Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1916 compared with the four preceding years. Volume II:
Commercial Intelligence (Organisation)—Memorandum by the Board of Trade and Foreign Office with respect to the Future Organization of Commercial Intelligence:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Army—

1. (Royal Warrant)—Regulations made under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893;

2. Rules of Procedure—Amendments:

Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1906—Provisional Order in Council, dated 18th August, 1917, providing for the Registration as British Ships of Vessels vested in the Shipping Controller:
Naval Prize Money—Account showing the Receipt and Expenditure of Naval Prize, Bounty, Salvage, and other Moneys, between 1st April, 1916, and 31st March, 1917:
National Insurance; Acts—Provisional Regulations, dated 17th August, 1917, entitled—

1. The National Health Insurance (Discharged Seamen and Soldiers) Regulations, 1917;

2. The National Health Insurance (Benefits of Disabled Seamen and Soldiers) Regulations, 1917:

Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the Borough of Chatham and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting a certain class of shops within the Borough:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Margate Pier and Harbour Company (1812)—Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ended 5th April, 1917:
Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord the Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the question of the release and transfer of prisoners under the recent Hague agreement. As your Lordships will remember, certain points were left over for settlement before the agreement could become effective. I should like to know from my noble friend whether these points have now been settled.
THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I regret to say that a serious difficulty has arisen owing to the Germans having, within the last day or two, taken objection to the use of Hull as the port of em-

685
barcation; this is all the more surprising because we proposed Hull as far back as July 11, and received this objection only a day or two ago. The only possible explanation is that the German Government are desirous of maintaining the belief in Germany that Southwold is the only route which is open between England and the Continent. That is the only explanation of which I can think myself; but I am in communication with the Admiralty, and trust that a satisfactory solution will be arrived at shortly. I am afraid that there is nothing more that I can say upon the subject; but unfortunately it is the case that, as long as the question of a port is loft undecided, it is impossible to proceed with the exchange of prisoners.

MARTIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MUNITIONS OF WAR BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to: Several others disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: Several others agreed to with Amendments: One, other disagreed to, but an Amendment made in lieu thereof.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing and their Amendments to the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to several other of the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith.—(Viscount Milner.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think your Lordships would be glad if the noble Viscount would make some statement as to the course the Government propose to adopt, and this would appear to be a very appropriate moment for doing so.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will make a brief statement of the position. I do not
686
pretend that the line taken by the Commons with regard to the Amendments passed in this House is altogether what I personally could have wished.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MILNER: On the other hand, I think noble Lords must all admit that the line which has been taken by the other House is one which has paid very great regard to the Amendments introduced by this House taken as a whole. I do not believe it is possible to contend that the attitude of your Lordships' House and your general views with regard to the Bill have not received full consideration on the part of the Commons. I take it that in a measure of this magnitude and difficulty, where two Houses exist, legislation would be almost impossible unless there was a willingness to compromise; and I think that a very broad spirit of compromise has characterised the action of the other House with regard to the Amendments. As the, President of the Board of Agriculture pointed out in the other House, a great many minor Amendments have been accepted without demur.
There were, three Amendments only of anything like importance on which the House of Commons had to decide, and, with regard to those, the Amendment which was by far the most far-reaching and to which the House of Lords apparently attached far the greatest importance—I mean the Amendment giving a very wide appeal to arbitration in cases where the Board of Agriculture or its agents directed that land should be used for certain purposes to which it is not at present put—that Amendment has been accepted by the House of Commons. I make no secret of the fact that personally I think that this Amendment goes too far, and I am sure that in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture it goes too far; and it was not without difficulty that the House of Commons were induced to accept it. The acceptance of that Amendment, to which you attached such great importance, ought, I think, to weigh greatly with your Lordships in your attitude towards those Amendments which the Commons have not accepted.
I may say that at this stage of the session anything like a sustained difference of opinion between the two Houses would lead to great difficulties and might lead-

687
to the loss of the Bill, which would be a serious national disaster. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the Commons House has met this House with regard to by far the most important and far-reaching Amendment which we had made in it, I think it is desirable on broad grounds of policy that we should not raise difficulties with the Commons about those Amendments which they have not accepted. I am going, therefore, on behalf of the Government, to propose, as we come to these Amendments, that we should not insist upon them. When I do that I frankly admit that I shall be asking your Lordships to accept the decision of the Commons on certain points as to which I think theirs is a wrong decision, but not on any points, as I hope to show, which are of really vital importance. None of the Amendments which I am going to ask your Lordships not to press is of first-rate importance. None of them is of anything like the same importance as the large Amendment to Clause 9 which the Commons have accepted. On these grounds I think that this is essentially a case in which the national interest demands that we should show a spirit of compromise, a spirit which has been shown by the other House; and it is that action which I shall venture to recommend to your Lordships on the various Amendments as they arise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will have no reason to criticise the tone which the noble Viscount has used in addressing us on this occasion. It is true that the House of Commons have agreed with your Lordships in one very important Amendment. That is a matter of great satisfaction, and I do not think that the noble Viscount went too far in claiming that as an important concession from those in a majority in another place. But I do not think that the noble Viscount gave as much weight as he might have done to the Amendments with which the House of Commons have disagreed. There are two such important Amendments. One was moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, and provided a different method of appointing the wages authorities throughout the country, a much better method as your Lordships thought; the other provided for the treatment of the wages of those workmen who are not able bodied, and that. Amendment appears to most of us to be of very great importance indeed. Of
688
course, when the time conies it will be your Lordships' pleasure and duty to discuss the Amendments; but it is very difficult to see how the Bill is going to Work at all as the Commons sent it up to us and as they now return it to us, and it is putting your Lordships in a very difficult position when you are asked not merely to pass that of which you do not approve, but to pass that which you are conscious will not work.
In all the endless discussions with which your Lordships are, I am sorry to say, familiar as to the proper position and function of the Second Chamber, one thing has always been agreed—namely, that it is our business to see that the legislation which passes through our hands comes out in a form which can work. That revising power is always admitted when everything else is refused to your Lordships. Those who hold the most extreme doctrine that upon any matter of policy your Lordships are not entitled to any opinion that does not conform to the opinion of the House of Commons always admit that at any rate the Lords exist to revise the legislation of the House of Commons and to see that it issues from Parliament in a form in which it will work. We shall venture to ask the noble Viscount to explain at the proper moment how the Bill, in the form in which the Commons sent it to us originally and now return it to us in respect of those workmen who are not able-bodied, is to work at all. The penalty of its not working does not fall upon your Lordships or even upon landowners; it does not fall, I need not say, upon the House of Commons—it falls upon these wretched old workmen who, by the carelessness of Parliament, if I may say so with respect, will be placed in a position where they are liable to be discharged by their employers. It is for these reasons that I think your Lordships' Amendment an important one. I do not wish to anticipate the decision to which your Lordships may come upon the question when it has been properly discussed, but I wanted to say what I have said because I did not think that the noble Viscount gave as much weight as he might have done, to this particular Amendment.
Besides the Amendments to which I have referred, there are one or two other Amendments, not of the first importance but substantial Amendments, with which the Commons have disagreed, and to which the noble Viscount did not particularly refer.

689
For example, there is an Amendment as to who will be responsible for paying for the tillages and other compensation due where the Hoard of Agriculture enters upon land in the extreme case. That is an Amendment to which the Commons Lave disagreed, but which appears to us to be, in its main outlines at any rate, of substance, and an Amendment to which it is almost impossible to take exception. And there are others. But these matters will be discussed when the time comes. In conclusion, I should like to say that we quite recognise the difficult position in which the Government are placed, and I am sure that every one of us will do his best to come to a conclusion which will be reasonable in the circumstances.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I must confess I do not quite follow the views which were expressed by the noble Viscount. He told us at the commencement of his speech that any sustained difference of opinion must inevitably lead to the loss of the Bill. Why is it, then, that this Bill was presented to the other House of Parliament for their consideration at the late hour it was? The noble Viscount now tells us that none of these Amendments is of anything like the importance of the main one that has been accepted by the Government. I am not prepared to dispute that statement. I am inclined to agree that that is one of the most, if not the most, important of all the Amendments that were considered by this House. But there are others—especially the one just referred to by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—also of very great importance. Bearing in mind what the noble Viscount has said, I think the Government might have given us more time in which to consider the final arrangement of this most important measure. I will give the House an instance of what I mean. I make no complaint of it, because I know what the pressure is upon them; but it is impossible to derive any clear and sufficient knowledge of the views which have been taken in the other House of Parliament in connection with all these different Amendments from the reports which appear in the public Press. That, I think, cannot be denied. I have just been favoured, through the kindness of a friend, with the OFFICIAL REPORT of the latest proceedings in the House of Commons. Of what use is that to me now? I obtained it not a quarter of an hour before I came into the House, and I had to start imme-
690
diately for the meeting of the House to-day. I hope, therefore, that we shall insist, as we have a right to do, upon an adequate discussion of all these Amendments, and that the Government will bear in mind that they delayed the proceedings in regard to this Bill to such an extent that they must bear the responsibility for whatever may happen, and not we.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 90.]
Clause 5, page 4, line35, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
" (2) The Agricultural Wages Board shall appoint district wages committees for such areas as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may by regulation prescribe.
" Provided that if at any time the Agricultural Wages Board are satisfied that in any area a representative joint committee, consisting of a chairman and persons representing in equal numbers employers and workmen engaged in agriculture, exists for purposes which include the fixing of minimum rates of wages for workmen engaged in agriculture, the Hoard may recognise and appoint that committee to be the district wages committee for the area.
" (3) Subject as hereinafter provided, a district wages committee shall fix minimum rates of wages for able-bodied workmen employed in agriculture in their district for time-work, and they may, if and so far as they think 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 Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it is desirable (1) in the circumstances applicable to England and Wales for securing uniformity of policy that the duty of fixing minimum rates should be vested in a central authority; and (2) that minimum lime rates should be fixed for non-able-bodied as well as for able-bodied workmen.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I move that this House do not insist on this Amendment. Perhaps I may briefly explain this proposal. If accepted by your Lordships it involves a large number of consequential Amendments which I dare say may be taken en bloc afterwards. But the point is this. We are going back to the original Bill in which the wages were to be fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board on the recommendation of the District Committees, instead of those wages being fixed by the District Committees themselves

691
and submitted for the approval of the Agricultural Wages Board. The Amendment which has been disagreed to by the Commons is a Government Amendment. We put it in ourselves, and I am sorry it has been disagreed with. The reason why we put it in as I explained at the time, was that it seemed to us to state more clearly what was the intention of the Government, and the procedure will remain, if the Bill is altered back to its original shape, what we have always intended that the procedure should be. There will be the District Wages Committees. They will make their recommendations to the Agricultural Wages Board. It is difficult for me to understand what substantial difference there is between the two proposals. I do not believe there is any. The only reason for putting in the Amendment in this House, from my point of view, was that by making the course of procedure clear on the face of the Bill it removed certain doubts and uncertainties as to what that course of procedure was to be. I honestly do not think it makes any substantial difference, and I hope your Lordships will not insist upon your Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Milner.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount has quite accurately said that this Amendment was supported by himself and proposed by the representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House—the noble Duke opposite. I have read through what the noble Viscount said on that occasion. It was a very forcible support of the Amendment introduced on the Government's initiative in your Lordships' House, and it is to that Amendment that the Commons have disagreed. When it is said that the Commons disagreed, I would point out that the Commons accepted the suggestions of the Government on every point. There was no question of the Commons taking a different view from the Government. It is simply that what the Government proposed in this House and said was the best solution they advised the Commons not to accept. Surely that is a very strong proposition for the Government to make.
May I remind the noble Viscount of the two main reasons why he supported the Amendment? His desire was to give stronger authority to the local bodies on the ground that in their particular localities
692
they would be the best bodies to deal with this question of the minimum wage. I entirely agree with him on that, as I think everybody must agree. The second point of the noble Viscount was this. He mentioned with approval the proviso which I proposed, and which was accepted, in order that after a time we might possibly have in this country the same Conciliation Boards as have been accepted in Scotland. But he went further. He pointed out that under the Trade Boards Act, which was introduced in the Schedule for the purpose of minimum wages, there had been thirteen cases in which conciliation by means of arrangement between employers and employed had been accepted and adopted, and I that this had acted thoroughly well in I every case without friction or difficulty. What he is now doing is this. He is asking I your Lordships' House to delete what in his own view was the best possible conciliation system, which according to his own observations had been adopted in thirteen cases under the Trade Boards Act and which in every case had acted without difficulty or friction. Surely that is a very strong matter. I agree with what the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) said, that it is one of the duties of this House to see that provisions of this kind should work fairly. What the Government are asking us to do is to delete one of the most important provisions inserted in order that this Bill may act fairly and work without friction as between the workmen on the one side and the farmers or the employers upon the other.
Let us look for a moment at the reasons which the Commons give. The first is "Because it is desirable in the circumstances applicable to England and Wales "—your Lordships will notice that Ireland and Scotland are eliminated, because they have the terms which they think best for dealing with questions of this kind, whereas England and Wales are not allowed to have the provisions which your Lordships desire—" for securing uniformity of policy that the duty of fixing minimum rates should be vested in a central authority." I venture to think that this is the worst possible argument. You cannot have a general system of minimum rates applicable to the country as a whole. I thought that this was made clear in the discussions which we had here. You must have variety between different parts of the country. What becomes of this plea for uniformity? Does the noble Viscount

693
contemplate one uniform minimum rate for England and Wales irrespective of local conditions and local customs? Unless he contemplates this, the reason given by the House of Commons means nothing at all. If he does contemplate it, then. I say that the Bill will be quite unworkable upon any such principle.
The second reason given by the Commons is that "it is desirable, that minimum time rates should be fixed for non-able-bodied as well as for able-bodied workmen." I do not intend to travel into the next Amendment which deals with that question, but I want to ask this, How can you fix minimum rates for non-able-bodied men irrespective of the particular conditions of the particular individual? Is it conceivable that you can fix minimum rates for non-able-bodied men, the class of person to whom the noble Marquess referred, the old men engaged in agriculture, who, I believe, have the sympathy of every one interested in the farming industry? How can you lay down a general rule applicable to all men of that kind? I have a man working for me who is between 80 and 90 years of age; I have hardly a man working for me who is not over 60 or 65. Are we to be bound to discharge these old men, whom it has been our pride to preserve in their homes and cottages and away from the workhouse in order that they may live where they have always lived and be buried in the churchyard of the church which they have always attended? Are you going to have a Central Board and say that no one is to employ a non-able-bodied man unless he pays him an impossible Wage? I feel very strongly about this first reason for disagreement with the Amendment which your Lordships introduced. We suggested a practical working system, reducing friction and trouble to a minimum. We suggested the principle of people deciding for them selves in their own localities. The noble Viscount said that this was the best system. Why has it been eliminated from the Bill?
VISCOUNT MILNER: It is not eliminated
LORD PARMOOR: It is.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Everything which the noble and learned Lord wishes can be done under the Bill as it stands.
LORD PARMOOR: We inserted provisions in the Bill enabling these things to be done.
VISCOUNT MILNER: They can still be done.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not believe that they can be done under the other form of the Bill, and the House of Commons have disagreed with is on the ground that they should not be done. If they took the view of the noble Viscount, why should they disagree? I regret intensely that provisions inserted for the smooth working of this Bill, and in my view entirely in favour of the agricultural labourer and inserted for his protection by people who know the conditions of his life, should have been eliminated by the House of Commons, and I should like your Lordships to disagree to what the House of Commons have done, though I know the difficulty of the Board of Agriculture at a time like this.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to say a few words on this most important matter, touching as it does the very poorest, and, as I think, in a great many instances the most deserving of our population. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne introduced this Amendment because he was very anxious—
VISCOUNT MILNER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. We are not discussing that Amendment. The Amendment of Lord Lansdowne comes on the next page.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Lord Lansdowne's Amendment does come in here. The whole object of his Amendment was to get rid of the system by which these poor old men had to go off before they could be employed and get a certificate of mental or physical incapacity. Can your Lordships imagines a more odious proceeding than that? In harvest time many men who are capable of doing perhaps only half a day's work turn up and ask for employment. Supposing one of these men came to me or to any of my tenants and said "I should like work," the answer—unless you wanted to become liable for a fine of £20 and a criminal prosecution and a further fine of £1 per day would be, "Where is your permit? "and if the man could not produce a permit certifying him

695
as being physically or mentally incapable, you would have to say to him "You must go and get your permit." But how long will it take him to get that permit? He will then ask you, "Where am I to go in order to get a permit?" I want to know whether these Boards are going to sit permanently for dealing with the case of casual labourers so that the men can without delay get permits, in the absence of which they cannot be employed without very great risk to the employer. The result of foregoing this Amendment will be that the farmers in the country, to whom in the autumn I hope this Bill will be explained, will be incurring very grave risks in getting that additional labour which is necessary but which is not worth full time labour.
I should like to make a suggestion to the representative of the Board of Agriculture. To my mind this Bill as it stands is unworkable. At the same time, to enable this difficulty to be got over to some extent—because it is no me taking a month to refer the matters up to London before permits could be given to these men whom one wants to employ at once—I suggest that in the Regulations of the Board of Agriculture power might be given to the District. Committees to say whether a man is able-bodied or not at the time. If that were done, a very great difficulty would be overcome. I trust that the House will seriously consider this point in the interests of a very large portion, old I admit, of the agricultural community.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that he does not see any real difference between the system which he proposed himself and which we inserted in the Bill and the system which is now placed in lieu of it. There is every difference in the world. One is extreme centralisation; the other gives effect to local knowledge and the consideration of the questions by local bodies. Just think what a Board means. How big is the Board going to be? Because you are proposing that it should deal with wages all over the kingdom.
VISCOUNT MILNERindicated assent.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Very well. I low large is your Board going to be? How long do yon think it will take them to establish a system of wages all over the country? Think of the delay there will
696
be; and how can any one Board really know about the circumstances of different parts of the country? As Lord Milner altered the Bill, this difficulty was surmounted. But now he is proposing to revive it. I do not understand what he means when he says that there is very little difference between the two systems. Let us see what were the arguments which were used against this Amendment in the other House. The whole argument of the President of the Board of Agriculture was in favour of the Bill as Lord Milner had altered it; but he said that the difference between the two methods was small. I think your Lordships must all see that this is not the case. He said that personally he was in favour of the more independent system—the system which, when it came to a vote, he was proposing to supersede. His argument in favour of the Board was of the weakest possible, description. As I have said already, I do not think this strong Central Board can possibly do its work in a satisfactory way to the whole kingdom; and certainly it will take a very long time over doing it.
In the Commons reasons for disagreeing they say that "minimum time rates should be fixed for non-able-bodied as well as for able-bodied workmen." This is the first mention of fixing time limits for non-able-bodied workmen of which I have ever heard. There is nothing about that in the Bill—I am told by a noble Lord near me that there is—possibly I may be wrong. But how can you arrange time rates for non-able-bodied men? I suppose there are a hundred different sorts of these men, differentiated by all kinds of differences of conditions of life, of habit, of everything. I regret that your Lordships should now take a step which is against the opinion of the whole of the Front Government Bench, unless they were deceiving us the other day, which of course they were not. The other day they proposed a system which they now say they must give up. I regret extremely that a retrograde step of this kind should be taken. What your Lordships may see fit to do with the Amendment I cannot at this moment say, but in any case I greatly regret the course which the Government have adopted, and which I think is not for the interest either of the country or of themselves.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, there seems to be an idea that these non-able-bodied agricultural labourers

697
will have to rush off to the various centres to get a permit, but under the Schedule there is power to delegate this to small sub-committees. We are going to do that in our county. We shall delegate one or two persons to go to the different farmers or to the different labourers and give permits to the men who are not absolutely able-bodied. There seems to be no difficulty at all about that, and as far as I can sec it will be a protection to the man who is not capable of doing a full labourer's day's work; and at the same time it guarantees what we all desire—namely, the 25 s. minimum to the able-bodied men without any possible doubt.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not propose to discuss the question of the non-able-bodied men, because really it is not in order, as it comes on the next Amendment. But I wish to say something about the very peculiar position in which we now find ourselves. We are asked to agree with the Commons in cutting out of the Bill an Amendment which the Government inserted in this House. My noble friend who is in charge of this Bill made no secret of his opinion that the Amendment introduced in your Lordships' House was a great improvement on the scheme of the Bill as it left the House of Commons; and as I read, in The Times to-day, the speech of Mr. Prothero, I should say that he is of exactly the same opinion. Yet he asked the House of Commons to disagree with the Lords' Amendment! Why was that? I do not know. But I can make a shrewd guess, as the result of thirty-two years experience of the two Houses of Parliament. I should guess that the Labour Party were, present in great force and that the Unionist agricultural Members were not. That is how I should reconstruct the situation.
I have complete sympathy with the jealousy of the Labour Party on behalf of the agricultural labourer, and I also quite understand that the Labour Party would approach Amendments made by your Lordships in this matter with suspicion—wholly unfounded suspicion—but we have to take prejudices as they exist. This is a very interesting instance of the unfortunate fact that the Labour Party in the House of Commons, as constituted at present, has practically no knowledge of agricultural or rural conditions. There are, hon. Members of that Party, personal friends of mine, who have that knowledge;
698
but the Party as a whole is an urban and industrial Party, and it has lost touch altogether with country conditions and agriculture. Indeed, the same may be said to a great extent of the House of Commons itself. Therefore it was most regrettable that, in addition to the large number of agricultural Members of the House of Commons serving with the Army in France whose absence from the debates on this Bill we have always deplored, there was at the end of the present sittings, quite intelligibly, an absence of the remainder who might have put the case to the Labour Party from personal knowledge.
I said that the suspicions of the Labour Party were wholly unfounded, and I can prove it because there was not one provision in the original Bill as it came from the House of Commons for the protection of the labourer and for his advantage that was not carefully reproduced in the Amendments which your Lordships passed in this House. But wherein consisted the difference? I do not entirely agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor. I say that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is quite right in saying that everything which we provided for in our Amendments can be done under the Bill, can be done by Regulation under the Schedule. Why did we alter the Bill? For two reasons. While, in the first instance, we have complete confidence in Mr. Prothero, and while he is President of the Board of Agriculture we know that everything for which we contended in this House in the interests of the labourer and of agriculture and the smooth working of the Act will be done by Regulation, none of us can tell who is going to succeed. Mr. Prothero at the Board of Agriculture; and the Bill is one which is not going to last for one session only but for five years at least. Therefore we considered it of great importance to amend the provisions so that in essential matters they should not be dependent on the personal knowledge and character of the President of the Board of Agriculture.
We put this matter into a much better form as the provisions left this House. The Amendments were the work of men who understood every phase of agricultural life and were in complete and absolute sympathy with the labourer. As the provisions have been reinstated in the House of Commons, I do not doubt they are the work of men in sympathy with the labourer,

699
but they are the work of men who do not understand the conditions of agricultural life. What is the moral to be drawn from this? The moral is that unless agriculturists of all classes, labourers, farmers, and landowners, combine in the same way as other classes do, we shall never have our interests properly attended to in the House of Commons. That has always been of importance. It is of vital importance in the future, because it is only by the organisation of men who thoroughly understand their subject that the well-meaning intentions of men who do not understand it but are organised can be frustrated. I have said that I do not agree entirely with Lord Parmoor as to the effect of the rejection of your Lordships' Amendment. I am quite sure that we improved the Bill immensely, but I believe that the points for which we contended can be carried out by Regulation by the President of the Board of Agriculture. Therefore as far as I am in a position to state an opinion I think, though with great regret, that your Lordships would be well advised in not insisting on your Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Commons disagree to the Amendments made by the Lords in page 5, lines 2, 7, 21 and 22, 24, 29, 31 and 32, 37 and 38 and 39; page 6, line 6, to the Amendment in page 6, line 9, to insert subsection (a) and to the Amendment in page 6, lines 11, 10 and 17, 21, 26, 27, 36, 38; page 11, lines 19 and 25; page 12, line 12; page 14, lines 9 and 13; page 15, line 26; page 18, lines 31, 34 and 36; page 19, lines 10, 12, 13, 14 to 23, 33, 36, 41 and 42; page 21, lines 3, 16, 25 and 26, for the following reason:
Because, these Amendments are consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 5 page 4, line 35, to which the Commons have disagreed.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I move that we do not insist on these consequential Amendments. They all follow on the decision just taken by the House.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendments.—(Viscount Milner.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Can the noble Viscount assure us that each one of these Amendments is strictly consequential?
VISCOUNT MILNER: I have no doubt that is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In as much as the Commons desired to strike out the substantive Amendment, they also struck out the consequential Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 5 insert new Clause A:
" Special provisions as to non-able-bodied workmen.
" A.—(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 bad 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 hereinbefore 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 Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because subsection (1) is unnecessary if minimum time, rates are fixed for non-able-bodied men, and subsection (2) is unnecessary if the proviso to Clause 5 (3) of the Bill is retained.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I move that your Lordships do not insist on this new Clause A. The view of the Commons on this Amendment is, I think, well understood by your Lordships, and the dis-

701
cussion on the previous Amendment has ranged to sonic extent over the point which is here involved. This is Lord Lansdowne's Amendment to meet the case of the non-able-bodied workman, and the effect of the action of the Commons is to restore the Bill to its original form, in which the only way by which a non-able-bodied workman can get employment at a rate of wage lower than the minimum rate is by obtaining a permit allowing him to do so. That is the course which the workman will have to take if your. Lordships do not insist on this Amendment.
The great objection to this course has been based on two arguments. One was that there was something humiliating to the workman in having to get a certificate of disability. As I understand the matter, there is no question of his getting a certificate of disability. All he gets is a permit to allow him to take the lower rate of wage. The other and more substantial objection was the difficulty the man would have in obtaining a permit, and the delay which would be caused by the necessity of obtaining these innumerable permits. The answer to that was given—I think it was a complete answer—by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire. He pointed out that under the Bill the Agricultural Wages Board which nominally gives the permit has power to delegate any of its powers, except the fixing of minimum rates of wages, to District Committees, and these District Committees, again, have power to delegate to sub-committees. In every case, as far as the permits are concerned, that is what will be done. They will be dealt with locally. There is nothing to prevent there being a sub-committee for this purpose in every village, It would be impossible to work the. Bill on any other system than that of very wide delegation. Therefore the idea that by restoring the Bill to its original form you compel every unfortunate old man who wants to work at a lower rate of wages to appeal to the Agricultural Wages Board is an entire delusion.
I believe the Amendment moved by Lord Lansdowne—which was accepted by the Government in this House, though it was not our proposal—to have been an un-objectionable and even a useful Amendment. I do not know whether your Lordships read what appeared in the Press yesterday morning on this subject. If so, you may have observed in various organs that this
702
Amendment was represented as an action of your Lordships' House hostile to the agricultural labourer and calculated to reduce the benefits which he will enjoy under the Bill. A very unfavourable view, unreasonably, was taken of this Amendment in certain quarters; and as the Bill in the shape in which it originally came to this House will really enable the workman who is not able-bodied to obtain his permit with no serious difficulty, I hope your Lordships will not insist on the Amendment which the Commons wish to leave out.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the Motion which has been made appears to me to be of great importance, and I shall ask your Lordships to substitute certain other words for certain words in this Amendment. First of all I wish to ask a question, to which perhaps I the Lord Chancellor will reply, as to the reasons for which the Commons disagreed with this Amendment. They say they disagree "because subsection (1) is unnecessary if minimum time rates are fixed for non-able-bodied men, and subsection (2) is unnecessary if the proviso to Clause 5 (3) of the Bill is retained; What will happen in this case? Clearly these rates for non-able-bodied men, if they can be made at all—I have considerable doubt in my own mind whether it is possible to fix any rate to cover classes of non-able-bodied men—will take a very long time. The question I wish to put is this, What will happen in the meantime before those rates are made? I do not know whether I am Tight or not, but it appears to me that until these rates are made it will be possible for non-able-bodied men to continue their employment in the circumstances under which they are employed at present, because, as was pointed out the other day, they do not come under Clause 4, and there is no retrospective action with regard to wages in their case. Therefore until rates are fixed for them I presume there is no reason why they should not continue to be employed on the same terms as they are being employed at present. Can the Lord Chancellor tell us whether that is the case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason given by the Commons for their disagreement is twofold. They say, first, "because subsection (1) is unnecessary if minimum

703
time rates are fixed for non-able-bodied men." When the Commons say "if minimum time rates are fixed for non-able-bodied men," I do not understand them in any way to contemplate—what certainly I do not find in the Bill—that there should be rates fixed specifically by the Wages Board for non-able-bodied men as distinguished from able-bodied men, because that would be an almost impossible task. What they mean is this, that the rate fixed under the Bill, when your Lordships' Amendment has been removed and subsection (2) stands as it was in the. Bill when it came here, will be a rate for workmen employed in agriculture, and not confined, as it was under your Lordships' Amendment, to a rate for able-bodied workmen. It will be a general rate. But it is obvious that if that general rate were enforced it might lead to the infirm man not being employed at all. Accordingly a system of permits has been introduced by which an extensive dispensation has been granted to those who are not able to do a day's work according to the wage fixed as a minimum rate generally for workmen in the district. The system of permits will, of course, achieve the same end which was intended to be achieved by the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. I may say that personally I think the machinery of Lord Lansdowne's Amendment was better. But the practical question for your Lordships is whether for a mere question of machinery you are going to risk the loss of the Bill. And it must be remembered that the agricultural labourers might be apt to take, a strong view of any action which resulted in their losing altogether machinery for fixing minimum rates of wages.
It must be recollected, as was pointed out by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, that there is a power in the Schedule for the Wages Board to delegate to a District Wages Committee any of their powers and duties under this Bill, other than their powers and duties to fixminimum rates of wages, and, subject to Regulations made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, to authorise any such District Wages Committee to delegate to a sub-committee thereof any of the powers so delegated to the Committee. By the exercise of these powers you can have local assistance which would enable you, I should hope with reasonable despatch, to have the issue of these permits arranged for; so that by a different power you reach the same end.
704
The rate is fixed generally, but, by the exercise of the power of dispensation, in the case of those who are not up to the standard of doing a day's work which will earn the minimum day's wage the employer is dispensed from the, obligation of paying them the minimum rate only. I hope I have answered the question of the noble Earl. I trust that very great expedition will be shown in extensively organising local sub-committees so that the permits may be granted with the utmost despatch.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble and learned Lord has misunderstood my question. It was, so long as these rates are not fixed—and they cannot be fixed for some time—in what position does the non-able-bodied man stand with regard to employment? Can he be employed on existing terms, or upon any terms that he may see fit to agree to, until such time as the definite rate of wages for non-able-bodied men is fixed? With regard to the clause itself, it seems to me to be a clause of the greatest importance. In fact, as the Lord Chancellor has already said, it is a far better clause than the one which it is proposed to substitute for it—or, rather, not proposed to substitute for it, because it was only an alternative clause. I propose to move certain words. I do not know whether I had better read them now or afterwards.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Read them now.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I propose that the clause which has been disagreed to by the Commons should read as follows—
A.—(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, obtain permission of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to forward 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 on obtaining their assent the contract shall be provisionally valid from the date hereinafter mentioned; provided that a copy must be sent to the Wages Board for their consideration and confirmation, who 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:

705
Then the proviso to run as it now stands. Those are the words which I ask your Lordships to substitute in the Amendment which has been objected to by the House of Commons.
Moved, That the said new clause be inserted in lieu of the clause to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with the perfectly accurate account which the Lord Chancellor gave of the matter as it stands, and it was because it stood in that way that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, convinced everybody in this House that it would work extremely unfairly as regards the old labourer or the non-able-bodied man. After this Bill has been passed and until certain matters have been considered, of which I will say a word in a moment, everybody who employs an old man or a non-able-bodied man at less than 25 s. a week becomes immediately subject to a heavy penalty, because it is in contravention of the principle of the Bill that any one, unless he gets a permit, shall be employed at less than the 25 s. a week. Therefore immediately this Bill comes into force every farmer, whether he wishes to or not, will be obliged to get rid of the non-able-bodied workmen. I am sure that every one in this House desires that such a result should not follow. It is hardly possible to imagine a harsher result as regards the class of man whom every member of your Lordships' House desires fairly to protect. But there is no escaping from the position. The moment this Bill is passed every person employing an old man or a non-able-bodied man for less than 25 s. incurs a heavy penalty and may be placed in the dock, as Lord Desborough has said.
LORD HARRIS: Then what is the use of the words "applicable to the case "?
LORD PARMOOR: It has been explained in this House more than once that, whatever the rates may be "applicable to she case," you have to pay at least the minimum of 25 s.
LORD HARRIS: To every woman and to every child?
LORD PARMOOR: To every man. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not
706
want to be diverted from my argument. I was not on that at the moment The noble Marquess's Amendment was that, during the time between the passing of the Act and the obtaining of permits, these poor old men and non-able-bodied men should be allowed to go on being paid as now, subject to this only, that if the Local Wages Board or whatever the authority is thought that the amount should be more than they had actually received they should be entitled to the larger amount. That is perfectly fair and right. It gave them every protection, and enabled them to go on in the employment in which they were engaged, which I think I may plead to the noble Viscount everybody desired.
It has been stated that you may make Regulations to deal with this matter. Of course you may. But there are two answers to that. First, when will these Regulations be made; secondly, in what form will they be made? What we desired was to give a statutory protection to the poor non-able-bodied man. It is an entirely different thing to put him at the will or discretion of the Board of Agriculture for the time being. I am not going to find any fault with the Board of Agriculture, but I know perfectly well that even people who are able to defend themselves find great difficulty in dealing with official bodies. These old men, once deprived of the protection of Parliament, will have no protection at all except what an autocratic body desires. I am the more insistent upon this because, as Lord Selborne pointed out, the Bill has been put in its present form probably by the Labour Party, who are not very cognisant of agricultural conditions. The Labour Party always desire uniformity. They are against, any special rates being paid even to non-able-bodied men. Their desire is to have a minimum rate all round. If you apply that to agriculture you get the greatest hardship imaginable. That was the very point that the noble Marquess made when he induced your Lordships to accept this Amendment without dissent. It was no question of farming; it was no question of general national policy; it was that a particular class of men who are singularly unable to protect themselves should be properly protected by statutory provisions. That was the meaning of his Amendment. I hope that when the time comes your Lordships will not consent to have this Amendment eliminated, but that you will insist upon maintaining in the Bill, perhaps

707
amended in the way Lord Camperdown has suggested, a provision which on every humanitarian ground ought, in the opinion of everybody who has any knowledge of agricultural life, to be preserved.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, it is very audacious for a layman to disagree with one so learned in the law as my noble friend Lord Parmoor, but I confess that I cannot construe the two subsections which deal with this particular matter as being so dangerous as he makes out. I assume that the words which are put in the forefront of the clause—that is, in subsection (1)—are applicable to the various classes of labour with which we are concerned. The wording is: "Any person who employs a workman, not being an able-bodied 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." "Workman" is defined as meaning any man, woman or child; and it is obviously ridiculous to suppose that Parliament would for one moment contemplate putting words into an Act which meant that every man, woman, and child, whether they are efficient or not, are to get a minimum wage of 25 s. That would be an absurdity.
LORD PARMOOR: That is in the Bill.
LORD HARRIS: I think the words "applicable to the case "have a context somewhere or other, which is important and which cuts into my noble and learned friend's contention. Take subsection (8) of the next clause. It says: "In fixing minimum rates for time-work under this section, the Agricultural Wages Board shall secure for able-bodied men"—not workmen—a rate of at least 25 s. I do not think that the Bill can be so badly drawn that in one place it provides that the Wages Board is to secure for the able bodied man 25 s., and that in another place it secures for every person, able-bodied or not, man, woman, or child, 25 s. That cannot possbly be; and I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to explain the words which my noble and learned friend could not construe.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid that the Government must be convinced that, if your Lordships think it
708
necessary in all the circumstances to accept what the Commons have done, we shall turn out one of the worst Acts of Parliament which has ever emanated from our system; for we have the spectacle of a noble and learned Lord, highly skilled in construing Acts of Parliament, who is really unable to give any definite meaning to the provisions to which we are asked to agree. In fact, he is inclined to think that the whole Bill is unworkable in this respect. I confess I am somewhat impressed by the argument of my noble friend Lord Harris. Perhaps there are some means of salvation in the words "applicable to the case." But anybody who is familiar with Acts of Parliament must realise that we are depending upon a most ambiguous phrase in order to protect these unfortunate old men, the people who ought to have been the first persons whose interests should be studied in connection with this part of this Bill.
But I should like to put one or two more difficulties. In the first place, as the Bill reached us from the Commons and is now returned to us, apparently the case of the man who is getting on in years and is no longer capable of doing a full, although he can do a very useful, day's work is not provided for. The words were that a permit could be granted in the case of a man who was affected by any mental or other infirmity or physical injury. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who pointed out that this was not sufficient. One knows what mental or physical infirmity means. It means some definite disability, some injury to the mind or the body, or illness affecting the mind or the body when makes a man infirm. But what of the man between 60 and 70 years of age who is still a good man, able to do very useful work, not in any sense of the word infirm, but simply not capable of doing what a man between 40 and 50 or between 30 and 40 can do? I fail to see that this case is provided for at all. I do not see how any Court could interpret the word "infirmity" as covering that case.
Let me take your Lordships to another difficulty. The provision in the Bill is that 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 Bill. That is the first provision. This Bill will take a long time to get into operation. It is all very well for my noble and learned friend on the

709
Woolsack to say that he hopes there will be great despatch. I certainly hope so. But everybody knows that these things take a long time. You have to arrange for your new organisation, your committees and sub-committees, and so on. It must take many months to come into force. What is to happen in the meantime? What are you going to do with the old labourers? This is an emergency Bill; therefore I am not wrong in dealing with the immediate foreground, because it is with the immediate foreground that we are concerned. I presume that the employer will say to the old labourer, "You are not worth 25 s., although you are a good fellow in many ways; I will give you only a sovereign." What is going to happen? After several months the organisation comes into operation. It is said by the Government, "Well then the old man will go to the tribunal and say, ' May I have a permit to take less than the minimum wage? ' "Suppose he does not go and ask for a permit? I put this difficulty to the Government. These old agricultural labourers are not learned in the law; they will not understand very much. In what position are you left if the man does not go and get a permit? As he has not got a permit lie will rank as an able-bodied labourer. I cannot read the Bill in any other form. The employer who has been I paying to this man all these months 5s. below the limit has been breaking the law and may be proceeded against in the Courts. He will be put into the dock, will this unfortunate employer. My noble friend laughs. I admit that he has said on a previous occasion that no disgrace attaches to it.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. Then disgrace will attach to it. The unfortunate employer will be put in the dock for having I paid this admittedly non-able-bodied labourer 5s. below the proper figure all these months. There is no remedy until the man goes to the tribunal and asks for a permit; yet there is nothing to compel him to ask for a permit, and I do not think he will do so.
Will the Government explain how their Bill is going to work? The real cause of the bad drafting is this headlong and ex-
710
traordinarily unbusinesslike way of legislating, on which I ventured to make some observations to your Lordships on the last occasion. We have no time. This Bill is sent to us to-day from the Commons with no proper Report. We hardly know what was said or what was done, and we are asked to put to the hazard that the Bill may be properly drafted, when we have every reason to believe that it is not; we are to put to the hazard the livelihood of these unfortunate old labourers. I confess that unless the Government can explain to us how this Bill is going to be made to work reasonably, we have nothing before us but to, I will not say insist on our Amendments, but to give the House of Commons another chance to consider the matter, which it is perfectly open for us to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Lord Harris is perfectly right in the way in which he reads the words "applicable to the case." Those words were inserted, as I think was stated in Committee, for the purpose of meeting the fact that the Board may fix different rates of wages applicable to different classes of workmen—rates suitable to men, rates suitable to women, and rates suitable to boys. The provision as to 25 s. has no application whatever except to the fixing of minimum rates for able-bodied men. It is a direction to the Board that they are, in fixing minimum rates, to see that the rate for able-bodied men is not less than 25 s. a week.
The case was stated with force by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, of a non-able-bodied man employed as a non-able-bodied man. There is no difficulty in that case at all. If the noble Marquess will look at Clause 4, subsection (4), he will see it is there enacted that the provisions of that clause as to payment of wages at a minimum rate shall operate as respects able-bodied men as from the commencement of the Act (although a minimum rate of wages may not have been fixed), so as to enable any sum which "would have been payable under this clause to an able-bodied man on account of wages for time-work if a minimum rate forable-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. Then there is a proviso that the man shall not be entitled to recover if the wages are decided to have been equivalent to 25 s. a week.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord has not dealt with the difficulty. Suppose the non-able-bodied workman, after the minimum wage has been fixed by the Committee, does not apply for a permit. He then ranks as an able-bodied workman from that time onwards, because he has no permit. Is not that so?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect will be that if the non-able-bodied workman does not get a permit he will not get employment, because he is clearly not worth 25 s.; and owing to his own fault he is without a permit which enables him to be employed at a wage below the full rate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But he will have been employed all these months, and, in the case I cited, will be entitled to recover the 5s. a week.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think not. The noble Marquess will see that when the minimum rate is fixed the retrospective operation under Clause 4, subsection (4), is confined to able-bodied men, and does not apply to the non-able-bodied man with whom the noble Marquess is dealing. Your Lordships will also observe that the permits are wanted only when a minimum rate has been fixed. Clause 5, subsection (4), says that 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 Board 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. While that notice is being given and time for objection being allowed, the process of entertaining applications by infirm or aged men may be approached, and with the assistance of sub-committees the Board may be in a position to grant permits, I should hope, as soon as the minimum rate of wages comes into force. With the assistance of sub-committees you may within a short time, or contemporaneously with the coming into force of the minimum wage, have the coming into force of the permits which will enable those who are not competent to earn a full wage to get employment.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not think that the matter is quite so clear. The Lord Chancellor has pointed out again that after the minimum rate has been fixed nobody can employ a non-able-bodied man at a lower rate without a permit. If he does he will be liable to the penalties I have pointed out. I think that the conditions are hopelessly wrong, but whether they can work at all in these circumstances will depend upon the form which the Regulations take. This House has no control whatever over the form of the Regulations. That is, of course, a matter for the official body. I do not know what the penalties may or may not be, but as the Bill stands, and apart from the form in which the Regulations are drawn, it is clear that if the minimum rate is fixed anybody who employs an old man at less than that rate will be liable to heavy penalties. Then there is another point to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. Between the passing of the Act and the fixing of the minimum rate there is no escape from the position. The position is that 25 s. is to be taken as the datum line until the minimum rate is fixed. If a farmer employs an old man at, say, 15 s. or £1 per week, he will be liable for the difference between the amount paid and the 25 s.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The retrospective provision applies as respects able-bodied men only.
LORD PARMOOR: That leaves the whole matter open. Who is to decide, as to his being able-bodied or not, if you employ a man of 75, 80, or 85? The farmer is left liable to pay the whole of the difference between the two figures.
VISCOUNT MILNER: May I call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the terms of Clause 5, subsection (9)? That subsection says—
In this Part of this Act the expression "able-bodied man" means any male workman who is not incapable by reason of age or mental or other infirmity or physical injury of performing the work of a normally efficient workman.
How could it be contended, with that provision staring you in the face, that a man of 75 or 80 years of age was an able-bodied workman?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It would be greatly for our convenience if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would read again the words of Lord Camperdown's Amendment, because I really do not know what it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will read that part of subsection (1) which has been amended by Lord Camperdown and which he has moved—
Where a person employs a workman, hot 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, obtain permission of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to forward 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 on obtaining their assent the contract shall be provisionally valid from the date hereinafter mentioned provided that a copy must be sent to the Wages Board for their consideration and confirmation, who 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:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, this really is the heart of the matter as we understand it. I am told by my noble friend who has charge of this Bill that the action of your Lordships in insetting the new clause has been represented in certain sections of the Press as aimed at the agricultural labourer and as showing the hostility of this House to his interests. I do not think that it would be possible to state anything more untrue or more unjust. Those who have said that are either supremely ignorant of agricultural conditions, or else they have not even a fundamental conception of justice and are prepared to libel in the grossest manner anybody who happens to be their political opponent. Your Lordships know well that this clause had no other foundation except our anxiety for the old and infirm agricultural labourer.
I would tell the Labour Party, with great respect, that we know a great deal more about the agricultural labourer and his
714
life than they do. It is the glory of agriculture that we have never turned off our old men. The infirm agricultural labourer and the aged are employed, and in the South of England they stay in their cottages in normal conditions to the day of their death. That is the condition of affairs which we meant to preserve, and which we feared was jeopardised by this Bill. The Government agree that our form is preferable; but they say that it is misunderstood in the House of Commons, that the whole thing is sufficiently preserved in the Bill as originally drafted, and they ask us not to insist on our Amendment.
What I understand my noble friend Lord Camperdown to have done is this. He has moved words the effect of which is to eliminate the share of the District Wages Committees in this proposed procedure. It leaves to the individual employer and to the workman the opportunity of making a provisional agreement, and it puts the obligation on the employer of sending notice of that provisional agreement at once to the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture may thereupon issue a sort of provisional permit, but subject in every case to the confirmation, amendment, or disapproval of the Central Wages Board. That preserves the intention of the Amendment, and at the same time puts its action into conformity with the plan on which the House of Commons insisted—namely, of leaving the responsibility to the Wages Board and not to the District Wages Committee. I think your Lordships will be well advised in giving the House of Commons an opportunity of reconsidering their position on this matter because I am sure that they misunderstood our intention; and on reflection I believe they will see that the Amendment, as amended, will be entirely consistent with the general scheme in connection with wages of which they have approved.
In conclusion let me say this. Suppose the House of Commons insist. I do not know what line your Lordships would take in that case. But if your Lordships, in that event, thought fit not to insist further on your view, I would make an appeal to all employers of labour not to be influenced in their action towards these old and infirm men by the unfortunate action of the House of Commons. I am sure that nobody in this House would be so influenced. We should not discharge our old men because the House of Commons had failed to under-

715
stand the importance of the matter and had rejected our advice. But I would remind your Lordships that we are a small minority of agricultural employers. It is often forgotten that more than 80 per cent. of the occupiers of land in this country occupy land of less than 150 acres in extent. How many aged and infirm labourers are employed by that 80 per cent. of occupiers of 150 acres and less? A very large number. And these employers are not men who can afford to run the risks to which they may think the Bill would make them liable. It is to those men that I would address my appeal. Do not let them, because of any action the House of Commons may take, be frightened for one moment and turn off these labourers; because I am perfectly convinced that, whatever action the House of Commons takes, public opinion will be too strong, and that men whose only fault has been kindness will not be allowed by public opinion to be punished, no matter what the provisions of the Act of Parliament may be. But I hope that the House of Commons will reconsider their position and take advantage of the opportunity which my noble friend affords to them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I propose to put the Motion in the following form, That the following new clause be inserted in lieu of the clause to which the Commons have disagreed—
Special provisions as to non-able-bodied workmen.
After Clause 5 insert new clause A.:
" A.—(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, obtain permission of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to forward a statement in the presented 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 on obtaining their assent the contract shall be provisionally valid from the date hereinafter mentioned; provided that a copy must be sent to the Wages Board for their consideration and confirmation, who may, if they think tit, 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 hereinbefore 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."
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 22; Not-contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Cholmondeley, M.

Selborne, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Salisbury, M.

Verulam, E.

Desborough, L.

Yarborough, E.

Greville, L.

Camperdown. E. [Teller.]

Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

Cowley, E.

Chaplin, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Leconfield, L.

Parmoor, L.

Harewood, E.

Sandys, L.

Northbrook, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Somerleyton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lincolnshire, M.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

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

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Chesterfield, E.

Cowdray, V.

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

Derby, E.

Elibank, V.

Howe, E.

Milner, V.

Lucan, E.

Peel, V.

Marlborough, D.

Plymouth, E.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Colwyn, L.

Newton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Aberconway; L.

Harris, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Annesley, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Rhondda, L.

Anslow, L.

Lambourne, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Leverhulme, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Colebrooke, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Wolverton, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 9, page 8, line 35, at end insert the following subsections:
" ( ) If within three months after the Board have entered on any land, the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires, a record of the condition of the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the land, shall be made within three months after the date of the requisition by a person to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institution; and, in default of agreement, the costs of making such record shall be borne by the Board and the person so previously in occupation in equal portions.
" ( ) Where the Board have entered on any land under this provision they shall pay to the outgoing tenant such amount as would have been due or payable by way of compensation on account of crops, tillages or other matters by the incoming tenant, and the amount so payable shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration under this part of this Act."
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
Leave out the second subsection.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I want to raise a point of order. These are treated as one Amendment, but they are two totally different Amendments. The first part was an Amendment moved by itself, and the second part, which stood in the name of a member of the Government (the Duke of Marlborough), was moved entirely by itself and was carried in that way. Therefore I protest against the two Amendments being taken together and subject to one answer, as if they were one Amendment.
VISCOUNT MILNER: We are not responsible for the form in which it is put. This is the way in which the Speaker, dealt with it in the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I cannot help that.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Is there any point of substance here? I understand that what the noble Viscount wants to preserve are the words in the second paragraph?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Certainly; and I want that put as a separate Question.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The Motion will be that we agree with the Commons Amendment. All that the noble Viscount has to do is to oppose that Motion.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: One Amendment I may be opposed to, but to the other I may not.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The first subsection, will remain in the Bill in any case. All that the noble Viscount has to do, if he wants to raise this question, is to oppose the Motion to agree with the Commons Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Commons have agreed with the first paragraph and have struck out the second, so that the only point with which we have to deal in disagreement with the Commons relates to the second paragraph.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: That is being put alone?
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I did not underhand. It is a novel form to me, at all events. I wish to say a word upon this. This question arises, as far as I am aware, only in the case of a Lady Day or a May Day entry. The date varies by a few days

719
in different parts of the country, but it is April 6 in that part of the country with which I am best acquainted, and it is accompanied by a six months notice to quit. I had to move to leave out the words "the occupier" in the original Amendment, because the occupier then would have been the new tenant. He would have entered upon the holding at the period of April 6. That form of tenancy was always regarded as being the best that was ever devised, because there was every inducement to the outgoing tenant to do his best up to the last moment, as he received full repayment for everything he had not reaped. The position is that the Board of Agriculture have taken powers to dismiss the tenant and determine the tenancy. Who, then, is responsible to the outgoing tenant for what he is clearly entitled to for surrendering and leaving the crops behind him? Of course, the Board of Agriculture ought to be so responsible. Take the case where a landlord cannot get a new tenant, or where, a tenant having been dismissed in this way, it may be difficult to get another. Is the owner to be responsible? It is very hard on him. He did no, dismiss the tenant. He would not have thought of doing so in the case of which I speak, where the landlord is by no means a rich man and would have a very heavy tenant right to pay in consequence, and where he is without the means or capital to take the farm over himself. If there is no incoming tenant to take it, the burden will fall upon him. That is very hard. Therefore I moved the Amendment and it was agreed to by the House. The Amendment was really drawn by the Government, I and they themselves put it forward. Now it has been dismissed, as I understand, in the other House on the ground of privilege. The Amendment to the other part of this clause was also wrong on that ground, so I am informed. But there the privilege was waived; therefore it was perfectly possible to waive it in the other case, and I ask the Government seriously to take into consideration the position which I have put before them. It seems to me to be an untold hardship. Who is to become responsible in the case of a very poor landlord, I do not know. But that is the position in which these landlords are placed. The clause originally contained the word I "occupier," and I wished to alter it by inserting "the outgoing" before the word "occupier." I should be prepared to agree that, instead of the words "the
720
outgoing tenant," it should run "the outgoing occupier."

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 9, page 9, line 21, after (" land ") insert (" and such notice shall be given not less than six months previous to the determination, of the occupation by the Board, and shall expire on one of the half-yearly days customary in the district where the land is situate ").
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendments:
Leave out (" six ") in line 2 and insert (" three "), and leave out (" determination of the occupation ") in lines 2 and 3 and insert (" withdrawal ").
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)
LORD HARRIS: I cannot help calling attention to this. For many years the accusation has been that the tyrannical landlord has never given his tenant sufficient time in which to wind up his affairs when he gave him notice. The consequence of that accusation was that. Parliament eventually passed an Act by which one year was the least time for notice under an agricultural tenancy. Now that the Government become what I contend is the occupier, sec the advantage they are to have. The Board of Agriculture can give only three months notice, instead of the six mouths which your Lordships put in when the Bill was before us in Commit tee.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 9, page 9, line 35, leave out from (" shall ") to the second (" be ") in line 37.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
In line 35 leave out (" within such time ") and insert (" before the expiration of suck period ").
VISCOUNT MILNER: This is a purely drafting matter.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment and agree with the Commons Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Will my noble friend read out how the provision will stand if we agree with the Commons Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The subsection will then read thus: '…shall, if he makes a claim for the purpose before the expiration of such period, not being less than one year, after the exercise of the powers as may be prescribed by the Board, be entitled to be paid by the Board such amount as represents the loss."
LORD PARMOOR: That is reintroducing the words which lead to so much misapprehension. It is no good raising any further protest, but I recollect that the noble Viscount opposite and the noble Duke both consented to have the matter put clear, which on the drafting was extremely obscure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is "before the expiration of such period not being less than one year."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not see the word "before."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a misprint. On the Paper it reads "for the expiration of such period." It should be "before the expiration of such period."
LORD PARMOOR: One other matter before this Amendment is put. The noble Viscount will recollect that there was considerable discussion on the compensation clause, which, for my part, I thought was generally satisfactory; but it was pointed out that it would be very inconvenient to make the compensation once for all. Therefore words were introduced, I think by the noble Viscount himself, with regard to the method under which you could have payment over a period of time.
VISCOUNT MILNER: That is still in. In the next Amendment the words are left in.
LORD PARMOOR: That is sufficient to answer my question. I thought they had been taken out.
VISCOUNT MILNER: No; that is not so.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 9, page 9, line 38, leave out (" as represents the loss ") and insert (" or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss on making a claim as prescribed, at least a year from the occurrence of the loss to be allowed for making the claim ").
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
Leave out all the words after the first (" loss ")
VISCOUNT MILNER: This Amendment deals with the point just mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. The rest of the clause as we altered it has gone out, because that is dealt with in the Amendment we have just considered.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to their Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 9, page 9, after line 38 insert:
" Provided that in the case of a claim for a notice requiring any grass land to be ploughed the time to be prescribed by the Board shall be such that a claim may be made at any time up to the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-six."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it is unnecessary having regard to the power of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to prescribe times within which claims are to be made varying according to the nature of the case.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The effect of not insisting on our Amendment here will be to leave the period during which claims may be made, in this as in every instance, to be determined by Regulations made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope that the Government will give us some assurance that the Board of Agriculture will take note of this point in making the Regulations. I understand from what the noble Viscount has said that it will be in

723
the power of the Board of Agriculture to give such extended time if it chooses?
VISCOUNT MILNER: So I understand.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Government know my views on what I call the ploughing policy, but it would be very wrong if they left out of sight the possibility that Parliament may alter these prices in future. The prices may fall or they may be withdrawn. I say, God forbid! But those things are possible. It cannot be ascertained until after the withdrawal of the prices what the effect will be, and before that very grave injustice may be done.
LORD PARMOOR: With regard to the substitution of Regulations for statutory enactment, I do not recollect in the complicated provisions of this Bill whether the Regulations made are to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 17, page 16, line 26, leave out (" and ") and insert (" the provisions of subsection (3) of section twelve shall not apply; and ").
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
Leave out (" twelve ") and insert (" eleven ").
VISCOUNT MILNER: This Amendment is purely drafting. The Commons have agreed to our Amendment, but owing to the omission of the previous Amendment the numbering has to be altered from "twelve "to" eleven."
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to their Amendment.—(Viscount Milner.)
House adjourned during pleasure; House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following twenty-one Bills received the Royal Assent—

War Loan.

Police Constables (Naval and Military Service).

Naval and Military War Pensions, &c. (Transfer of Powers).

Isle of Man (Customs).

Expiring Laws Continuance.

Fishery Harbours (Continuance of Powers).

Public Health (Prevention and Treatment of Disease) (Ireland).

Workmen's Compensation (War Addition).

New Ministries.

Solicitors (Examination).

Munitions of War.

Corn Production.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Glasgow Boundaries Act, 1912 (Amendment) Order Confirmation.

Blackpool Improvement.

Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply.

Armstrong, Whitworth and Company (Railways).

Levinstein (Railways).

Cheshire Lines Committee.

Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Martin's Divorce.

THE AUTUMN RECESS.
THE DUKE OF MARYBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until Tuesday, the 16th of October next.
House adjourned at ten minutes before three o'clock, to Tuesday, the 16th of October next half-past ten o'clock.