Lords Sitting of 31 January 1918

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Lord STANMORE The Lord STANMORE appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees.
REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a (Lord Hylton), and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion that is in my name upon the Paper—that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting. This Motion is moved solely with reference to two Bills which have already passed the Second Reading in your Lordships' House. They are the two Bills in charge of my noble friend Lord Peel—the Military Service Bill and the National Registration (Amendment) Bill—both of which are down for Committee stage this afternoon. I understand that in neither case is there any Amendment to be moved, and therefore we shall escape the Report stage. My noble friend represents to me that it is a matter of great public urgency to get these Bills on the Statute Book as soon as possible, and it is in order to facilitate that end that I ask your Lordships' consent to take the Third Reading as well as the Committee this afternoon. I believe that just now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked a question about the Second Reading of the Irish Redistribution Bill. I think, my Lords, we had better put that Bill down for Second Reading on Monday next. It will then be before us at the same time as the Representation of the People Bill comes back from the House of Commons, and can be considered appropriately, I think, on the same day.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Earl has mentioned two Bills of which I admit the urgency. Supposing we suspend the Standing Order and pass the Third Reading of both Bills to-day, does he contemplate a Royal Commission this week?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, my Lords; I am doubtful whether there can he a Royal Commission this week. It depends upon arrangements which have not yet been made, but my noble friend Lord Peel is anxious to get these Bills ready for the Royal Commission at the earliest moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that my noble friend desires the suspension of the Standing Order in respect to the Military Service Bill and the National Registration (Amendment) Bill. Speaking for myself only—I have no right to speak on any one else's behalf—I see no objection to the suspension of the Standing Order in respect of any Bill which is really of importance to the conduct of the war. That is strictly in line with all that your Lordships have done during the last three years. But it will be observed that the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill will be affected by the same proceeding. If my noble friend does not intend to use it in regard to that Bill, his assurance on that point, of course, is quite sufficient.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl means that he does not intend to ask your Lordships to avail yourselves of the suspension of the Standing Order in respect to that Bill, that is sufficient for us.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I purposely excepted the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill, because I was told just before I came in that it was not unlikely that an Amendment might be moved in the Committee stage of that measure.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I had intended to raise the same point as my noble friend. There are some Amendments on the Paper, and I understand that my noble friend below the gangway, Lord Bryce, has also an Amendment which is not on the Paper.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: May I say one word about this? It would be a great convenience if, whenever it is proposed that Standing Order No. XXXIX should be suspended, the Bills to which it is intended to apply the suspension were mentioned in the Notice. On this occasion there was some alarm created among those interested in the Bill which has been mentioned—the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill—by supposing that the general form in which the Notice was given would apply the suspension to that Bill.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am sorry that any such apprehension should have been felt, but I think it would have been removed had the noble Lord seen the OFFICIAL REPORT which reached us all this morning of the proceedings of yesterday evening. My recollection is that my noble friend Lord Crawford, who was acting for me in my absence, at the close of the proceedings announced the intention of the Government to move the suspension of the Standing Order, and that he said specifically that it was for the purpose of the two Bills to which I have referred.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that the OFFICIAL REPORT of last night's proceedings was not delivered to the houses of some of us by 3 o'clock to-day.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am sorry to hear that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps on future occasions it would save misunderstanding if the Notice for the suspension of the Standing Order were given in the other form—namely, that the Order should be suspended in respect of certain named Bills instead of generally. That is a small point, however.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My impression is that that course is sometimes followed.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I notice that it has been observed on several occasions by the noble Earl himself, and it is only on this occasion that it has not been followed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition against dealing in certain metals and ores without a licence.
1.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any company, firm, or individual after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, or such longer period as the Board of Trade may generally or in any particular care allow, to carry on the business of winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way of wholesale trade, in metal or metallic ore to which this Act applies, unless licensed to do so by the Board of Trade, such licence to be in the form set out in the Second Schedule to this Act :
Provided that the purchase or sale of metal shall not be deemed to be dealing in such metal where such purchase or sale is incidental only to the trade carried on by the purchaser or seller :
Provided also that no licence shall be required when the winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing is carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to delete the final proviso at the end of subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I called your Lordships' attention to these words in the discussion last night on the Second Reading. I should have been glad to know, before moving my Amendment, what the view of the Government is about it. So far as I understand the history of these three lines, lines 18 to 20 on the first page, I think I am right in saying that they were not in the Bill as originally introduced, and that they were inserted in the course of its passage in another place. The first question that requires deciding is one which I confess I am not myself competent to decide—there are many noble and learned Lords who may advise your Lordships upon it—it is exactly what the word "dealing" would mean in this proviso. Supposing a company is established in this country and, as in the instance I gave yesterday, has a mine in a neutral country and sells the produce of that mine in the neutral country at the month of the mine, to, say,

251
some German agent, it is perfectly obvious that that contract is made under the authority of the company which is domiciled here, and that the proceeds of the sale will ultimately reach the coffers of the company in this country. I do not know whether in law that constitutes a dealing inside or outside the United Kingdom. If, in spite of the actual transaction having taken place outside, it constitutes—as, on the whole, I should have been inclined to suppose it did—a dealing to some extent inside the United Kingdom, then it seems to me that this proviso will not attain the object it is intended to attain. Whether that be so or not I submit to your Lordships, for the reasons I stated yesterday, that this proviso is rather undesirable.
The object of this Bill, so far as one understands it from the Government's explanations, is to obtain some control, or at any rate some knowledge as to the other control, of certain metals, and to prevent that control passing permanently into alien and unfriendly hands. If you keep this proviso in the Bill, then the case may arise which I pointed out—a case which is within my own knowledge, and I have no doubt there are many similar cases—in which a company has bearer shares not being under this Bill and not being required to obtain a licence if the dealing is outside the United Kingdom and whose shares remain bearer shares. Not only does the Government not know but the directors of the company may not know where the real control of the company is situated or who is the real holder of the bearer shares and influences the voting and the dealing. In that case it seems to me that this proviso, if left in, will prevent your meeting certain cases which the Bill as a whole is desired to meet, and I suggest it is very desirable that these words should be excised.
As I have said before, if such a course of dealing is a dealing within the United Kingdom, then the words are idle; but if the words are not idle, then I think to some extent you destroy the effect of the Bill. I think the House as a whole will agree that it is desirable to take any steps you can to prevent the entire control of important metals, in time of war, passing into alien hands and your supply and treatment not existing in this country. If the Bill is justified on that ground, then I think you should make it as comprehensive as you can. I repeat, I do not think this Bill does
252
much towards that. It is intended to be a step in that direction, and if similar enactments took place in our Colonies and Dominions you would have gone considerably further towards it. So long as the proviso remains in, you may have a company domiciled in the City of London the directors of which are largely English and to all public appearance it is a British company, but which, in fact, is making contracts which it is the desire of this Bill to prevent. Seeing that this proviso was no part of the original Bill, I hope I shall be able to persuade the Government to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, leave out lines 18 to 20, inclusive.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD HYLTON: I am sorry that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, and I am all the more sorry because in the debate on the Second Reading yesterday he was good enough to give the Bill his valuable support; valuable not only as coming from the noble Earl in his legislative capacity, but valuable also as coming from him through his connection with a company, one of the non-ferrous metal companies, doing dealings on a comparatively large scale. But I am afraid the Amendment cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The noble Earl was perfectly correct in saying that this proviso, which he wished to be left out of the Bill, was not part of the Bill when it was originally introduced, in another place, and that it was inserted in Committee there after careful consideration in order to make clearer the scope of the Bill.
The chief objects of the Bill, as I endeavoured to explain yesterday, are first, to prevent enemy influence in regard to metals and ores shipped to and from the United Kingdom; secondly, metals and ores whether or not produced in the United Kingdom but which are in the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, the London Metal Exchange. It is not possible to prevent transactions carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom, nor is it desirable, in the opinion of the Government, to place any obstacle in the way of British companies owning mines abroad disposing of their output as they may deem proper. We believe that any interference of the Government in that respect would simply result in the headquarters of the company,

253
now in this country, being moved elsewhere, or the mine passing into other hands. The general wish of the Government is not to overload the Bill.
I think I may say, speaking on behalf of the Board of Trade, that we fully appreciate the justice of the remarks made yesterday by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and the noble Earl below the gangway, who had a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, with regard to, I will not say the apprehension, but the anxieties they expressed that the Bill might in some way interfere with the delicate mechanism of British trade all over the world. The Government are extremely anxious to do nothing in the Bill that would justify such apprehension. Therefore they do not wish to accept such an Amendment as that which the noble Earl has brought forward, which to some extent would overload the Bill, and I am afraid on that ground it is impossible to accept it. The noble Earl mentioned a case yesterday of a British company having a large amount of bearer shares which worked mines either in the United Kingdom, in British possessions, or in a foreign country.
EARL RUSSELL: No, in a neutral country.
LORD HYLTON: Whether or not such a company would come under the Bill would depend on whether the dealings were carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The explanation of the noble Lord opposite, which applies to some of the points raised by the noble Earl, does not seem to me to cover The whole situation. I do not quite understand, if it is the desire to maintain the limitations which the noble Lord has stated and not to overload the Bill, why the operations mentioned in this proviso are confined to those within the United Kingdom. What is the reason for not including the rest of the Empire? I can understand that as regards the Dominions it may be said they are fully competent, as indeed they are, to legislate for themselves. In the famous case of the Australian spotter, which was alluded to last night and which has been one of the main props of the Bill, the arrangements were come to, as the noble Lord knows very well, between the
254
Prime Minister of Australia, who was over here, and the Board of Trade by personal converse, and the communications which passed between the two Governments resulted in a satisfactory arrangement. But when you come to India and the Crown Colonies, I confess I do not see what differentiates them from the United Kingdom. I mentioned yesterday a particular case which I happen to know about, and which has also been mentioned in another place—the monazite sand in Travancore. That is a case where a British company, undoubtedly a British company, was by various means induced, owing I suppose to some changes in its composition or the holding of its shares, to give a preference to the German manufacturers. It was discovered and put a stop to, but I do not see why a case of that kind should not come under this clause. Apparently it would be excluded from it. Perhaps the noble Lord may be able to explain these points.
LORD HYLTON: I think that I can answer the question put by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition. I am informed that it is impossible for us to make enactments in the case of India or the Crown Colonies, and of course the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of Canada legislate for themselves. Although, as I am told, we cannot legislate for India or the Crown Colonies, we have great hopes, if this Bill be passed, that similar legislation will be enacted in the Crown Colonies.
LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH: I can give an additional reason. I do not know whether it is really the actuating reason or not. This is an illustration of the difficulty of legislating upon this kind of subject. We had the noble Earl below the gangway protesting that this Bill was doing too much, and to-night we have had the noble Marquess protesting that it is not doing enough. The particular thing that is objected to is not requiring a licence when winning, extracting, smelting, and so on, is done wholly outside the United Kingdom. As I understand the matter, the position is this. It is not physically possible, or legislatively possible, to prevent or to stop transactions which are carried on wholly outside His Majesty's Dominions. If you put an obstacle in the way of an honest British Company that has a licence for other things carrying out these transactions you are doing harm to that company's

255
business, and you will be putting a premium upon that company attempting to move its business outside the United Kingdom. It is very desirable that we should have as much as possble of business here, and, therefore, unless you can effectually prevent it being done, you ought not to attempt it.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I do not wish to take part in the discussion upon this Bill, but having been Colonial Secretary for five years, I must put in a caveat against the statement just made that we cannot, or do not, legislate for India or the Crown Colonies. In this House we do constantly legislate for India, after consultation with India, and for the Crown Colonies, after consultation, through the Colonial Secretary, with the Governor of the particular Colony concerned. I should not like it to go out from this House that it is a thing which we cannot do or ought not to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): No one would dispute the omnipotence of the Imperial Parliament. The Imperial Parliament is supreme. The question is, is it expedient that we should deal with these matters? I submit that in the House of Commons the right course was taken in their introducing this clause. With regard to the Dominions the case, I think, was conceded by the noble Marquess opposite; while with respect to India he says that, having regard to the mine in Travancore, legislation of this kind might be expedient. Travancore, of course, is an independent protected State; still, it is no doubt very much under the control of the Indian Government, and any person in India dealing with these mines would, of course, be amenable to legislation passed with regard to India. The India Council or the Governor-General in Council can provide the most appropriate machinery for carrying out the purpose of the Bill in India. I submit that it is better to leave it to them, and I also think that the same applies with respect to the Crown Colonies. The truth is, that as soon as you find it is not convenient to legislate for the whole world, it is better to leave outs de the ambit of the Bill what takes place entirely outside the United Kingdom.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is no reason why the arguments of the noble and
256
learned Lord should not prevail upon substance and merits, but to say that this Bill would, if these words were struck out, be legislating for the Dominions or for India or the Crown Colonies, and would not naturally be within its scope is to say something that really is not so. It is a Bill which deals with people who are amenable to the law; that is to say, people in this country cannot go abroad and do certain things which in the law of this country are crimes, and we legislate against them on that score, not because they are doing these things abroad, but because they are British subjects at home. It is perfectly open to pass this Bill without the words which the noble Earl proposes to strike out. I think that there is a good deal not only in what has been said about its being expedient that the Dominions should do these things for themselves, but also in what my noble and learned friend here said.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am not learned.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: What my noble friend has said, then. My noble friend has been at the head of a Committee which has had an inquiry upon subjects germane to this matter, and I had that in my mind when I described him as "learned." What he said is true, that it is extremely awkward to pass any legislation which might deter companies from having their headquarters in this country. This country has hitherto been the centre of the money market, and anything which you do which prevents people from coming here is deleterious to a very important interest in the State. For that reason I am with my noble friend in the arguments which he has put forward, and I think that, with proper safeguards in the Bill, it would be better to leave it as it stands.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is perfectly competent, of course, for the British Parliament to legislate for British subjects not only in the British Dominions over the seas but all over the world. The question here is with regard to acts clone wholly outside the United Kingdom, and whether it is expedient to apply the machinery of the Bill to them. I agree with my noble friend opposite in thinking that it s not.
EARL RUSSELL: May I say a word in reply on the merits without travelling into those high constitutional questions which have been raised on this matter. I confess that the case for the Government left me unconvinced. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said, I think, two things chiefly. The first was that you should not impose the hardships or the annoyance and inconvenience of obtaining a licence upon people whose only occupation was carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom. I did not think that it was part of the Government case that this Bill really did impose a hardship on companies who came under it or on any honest British company and it seemed to me that when the noble Lord came to deal with countries that he passed over a point which to my mind is by no means without importance, that if you do not require these companies to obtain a licence you do not know who owns their shares. The noble Lord said that the mine cannot be transferred to alien hands, but the whole case which I urged was that the mine was already in fact in alien hands although nominally under British control. I confess, however, that I am much mere influenced by the arguments of the noble Lord above the gangway. I admit the knowledge that he has acquired of these matters from his inquiries on Committees, which have been referred to and I should very much hesitate to go counter to anything he has said, and if I am not able to obtain his support on this Amendment I should feel it hopeless to persist in it, although I do think that there is a distinct leak in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 :
LORD HYLTON: The Amendments that I have down upon this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 3, line 27, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the company or firm")
Clause 2, page 3, line 28, leave out ("thereby") and insert ("by the company, firm or individual") and leave out ("therein") and insert ("in such business")
Clause 2, page 3, line 29, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the company or firm").—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4.
LORD HYLTON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 4, line 28, leave out ("as members") and leave out ("of members").—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Short title and duration.
10.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Nonferrous Metal Industry Act, 1918.
(2) This Act, shall continue in force only during the continuance of the present war and for a period of five years after the termination thereof.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I thing most of us who listened to the debates yesterday will not contest the view that this Bill may be needed, and perhaps urgently needed. We have had reason to believe that serious injuries to our national interests have occurred by the control of metals specially necessary for war purposes falling into the hands of our enemies, and any proposition which is intended to remove that source of danger comes before us with a very strong presumption in its favour. I agree, and I think we all agree, that any Bill which the Government can assure us is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the war ought to be enacted. We have no difference of opinion anywhere as to the necessity of taking all steps, of any kind that is consistent with sound principles, for endeavouring to do whatever we can for the efficient prosecution of the war.
But in the case of this Bill, whose operation is proposed to be continued for five years after the war, other questions arise. We do not know, as appeared from our debate yesterday, the full facts upon which the Bill is based. We cannot tell with any amount of certainty how the Bill will work. We may have experience during the rest of the war as to how it does work, and we may come to the conclusion, within the experience of the next few months, that more efficient measures may be devised for attaining the end which we desire to secure than this Bill holds out. I was mach impressed by what was said by the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp)

259
yesterday, and I think the same idea had occurred to many of us that what is really wanted in these cases is to get at the sources of supply, that the most efficient remedy, and the remedy which would be desirable for many reasons, is to know where these valuable metals exist within the British Dominions, and to secure that the control of these metals, especially the metals most necessary for war purposes and for all the industries concerned with the war, should not pass into what are possibly enemy hands. But we shall have much light on this subject during the next few months, when this Bill is put into operation, and it is far better that the operation of it should be studied than that we should now, in darkness as to the methods of its working, and with considerable doubt as to whether it is choosing the best means for attaining its end, continue its operations for so long a period as five years after the war, especially considering that there is a certain amount of anxiety in mercantile circles as to whether it may not actually prejudice British trade in some respects.
There is a further reason, and it is upon that reason that I chiefly desire to dwell in recommending this Amendment. This argument applies to pretty nearly all the commercial legislation which has been either proposed or carried, which is to operate after the war. It is this. We do not know in the least and we cannot foretell what the after-war commercial conditions will be, or what the after-war conditions of Europe will be, or what will be the after-war conditions which will affect British trade—our trade with the countries which are now enemies, or our trade with the countries which are now neutral. Now, the threat of being able to apply coercive measures to the trade of those who are now our enemies, or likely to be our enemies, is a very powerful weapon. It is a powerful weapon in any negotiations which we may have to enter into for the settlement of the Treaty of Peace; it is a weapon which may have to be used, but it does not follow that this is the right moment to take it from its sheath and brandish it in the eyes of our enemies. It may be more useful to reserve that weapon for the time when it can be used with most effect.
And I confess that this was to me always the fundamental objection to the publication of the Resolutions of the Paris Con-
260
ference. It seemed to me that those Resolutions, apart altogether from their merits—and upon their merits there is, as your Lordships know, the greatest possible difference of opinion—but apart from all difference of opinion as to their merits it was very doubtful whether it was prudent at that moment to indulge in the threat which the Paris Conference Resolutions contained. It was, if I may use a somewhat colloquial expression, altogether too previous, and it was used by the German Government for their own purposes. One of the most effective instruments which they employed to try and rally their doubtful and discontented mercantile subjects and interests was to represent to them that, whatever sort of nominal peace might be made, we were bent on carrying on a commercial war I against them, and therefore they might just as well fight as hard as they could now because a commercial war was certain to be resorted to afterwards. It would have been better not to have put that argument into their hands, but to have reserved it for a time when it could have been used with the greatest possible effect.
Is it not rather a mistake for us to legislate now for after-war conditions, when we have not the least idea what the after-war conditions will be? Is there anybody among your Lordships who would venture to make any predictions as to the conditions upon which this war will end, as to the provisions of the Treaty of Peace, as to the position in which we shall stand after the war, and the measures that we require for the protection and defence of our trade, and especially of those trading interests which are intimately connected with war or the possibility of war? This only we can say. So far as it is possible to judge, the conditions after the war will neither be what they are now, nor what they were before the war. What they will be we cannot in the least foresee.
I submit, therefore, that it will be far better to put a brief limit to the operation of this Bill. If we limit it to the period of the war and one year after, we shall have ample time when the war comes to an end to continue the Act, if it is necessary, or to amend it, or to resort to some other means, whatever they may be, that are necessary to protect our trade in commodities of this kind, which are evidently of such fundamental importance to us. The case seems to me, therefore, one in which it is far more prudent that we should wait to see what

261
the after-war conditions will be before we attempt to legislate for them, and I think that the space of a year after the war ought to be sufficiently ample for that purpose,
Amendment moved
Clause 10, page 6, line 25, leave out (" five years ") and insert (" one year ").—(Viscount Bryce.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I do not think that I am the only member of your Lordships' House who had it in mind to address the House upon the Second Reading of this Bill; but there were more reasons than one last night why I (and I dare say others) refrained from doing so. I confess that I was very much influenced by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—because I have known him all his life as being a staunch Free Trader—and when he recommended to the House that they should nevertheless accept this Bill, and that, having gone most deeply into the subject, he felt convinced of its necessity, I had very great difficulty in saying anything to the House.
I certainly felt very strong objections to the Bill in many- respects. The way that it brings in proposals for the interference by a Public Department with the course of trade is one thing as to which we heard a great many remarks during the progress of some of the previous Bills that have been before your Lordships this session. There were other reasons into which of course it is not relevant to enter now. But there was one point in the Bill which seemed to me to make it a much more serious matter than the particular objections to the clauses to which I refer—namely, the sting in the very last line of the Bill where it says that it is to continue for five years after the end of the war, whenever that may be. There is a very strong feeling both inside and outside this country upon the subject of continuing an economic war, after the close of the present war, in the ordinary sense. I think that there are many who have felt very strongly upon that subject with reference to this Bill. So far as this Bill can really be described as a war Bill, of course (as has been already said) whatever objections we feel in this House on principle to its details, at any rate no difficulty will ever be raised to its proceeding as quickly as may be necessary. But when you come to such a proposal as its extension for five years after the end of the war, that is serious thing for your Lordships to do in a Bill of this kind.
262
The position with regard to the diplomatic situation when the end of the war comes, surely requires serious consideration. The matter was put before your Lordships last night in very grave words by the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe), and it would be presumptuous of me even to repeat his words. His authority is, of course, a very different affair from my authority. But I believe that there are many persons in the rank and file who feel very strongly on this subject; and I am sure that it would add greatly to the quietude of many minds if your Lordships would consent to an Amendment of this kind, and thereby reduce the time from five years after the end of the war to one year.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before the noble Lord in charge of the Bill responds, I will venture to intervene for a moment. I frankly confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with much that has fallen from the noble Viscount below the gangway (Lord Bryce), and from Lord Muir Mackenzie, in the very temperate and reasoned speeches they have made. Lord Muir Mackenzie talked about the possibilities of an economic war hereafter. I, for one, sincerely hope that this may be avoided; but I believe that intelligent preparation for that eventuality will be one of the best ways of avoiding the possibility of it. In my opinion, whether there is subsequent economic friction or war will depend very much upon the class of peace we are able to make; and it is too soon to prophesy upon what that may be.
With regard to the particular question of whether it should be one year or five years I want to say a word. I am not responsible for the five years term. That term is open to the criticism that it is very long. But I am equally certain that one year is not sufficient. I will tell your Lordships why. The point made yesterday which had most influence on the Bill in giving it a Second Reading, was that enemy influence had undermined this class of business in this country. If it has been undermined—and it has—the new companies, which I hope will be founded and worked under this Bill, must have a certain amount of security for a permanent existence, otherwise it will not be worth while to found them. I suggest that one year is not long enough for that. I do not think that anybody can suppose that, with the difficulty of communication, with the

263
difficulty of acquiring sites, and with the difficulty of getting supplies and bringing them under control, one year will be temptation enough to people in this country to subscribe their capital for the purpose we have in view. Therefore I think that one year would certainly be too short.
The Amendment is a rather important one, and it would have been convenient, in the difficult circumstances in which we are placed, if notice could have been given to us, either for this or for a subsequent stage; because the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has to consult those to whom he is responsible for the conduct of the Bill through the House. If I had been drafting the Bill I should have suggested that the term should have been for a period of two or three years, with power to prolong, not exceeding so and so, by Order in Council. That, I think, would have been the better way of doing it. But, as I have said, I am not responsible, and I am not at liberty to suggest. Yet I strongly put it to your Lordships that, for the reasons given yesterday, one year will not be enough.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before the noble Lord replies I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a word in general support of the views expressed by my noble friend, Lord Bryce. I said yesterday that the proceedings and resolutions of the Economic Conference held in Paris in 191 had been subject to some misapprehension, and I am not quite certain that this is not to a certain degree shared even by my noble friend Lord Bryce. Those who will carefully study the terms of those resolutions will see that no vindictive, or even punitive, action against German trade is contemplated in their terms. What is contemplated is the assurance to the signatory Powers of security for their traders against the particular machinations of which the Germans were, by common consent, guilty. It is not a question, I need not say again, of protection against trade competition, but of security against the particular proceedings which this Bill is designed to defeat. I say that in continuation of what little I said about the Economic Conference yesterday.
Therefore, when one takes the question of the five years or the one year term, one looks at it from the same point of view as my noble friend who spoke last—namely, as to whether the five years term ought
264
to be necessary, in the view of those who favour the Bill as a whole, in order to obtain the security which the Bill desires. On the other hand, there is the difficulty, which I think was appreciated by my noble friend, that the naming in the Bill of a term of five years looks less like an endeavour to obtain security than an attempt to exercise vindictive action against German trade, as such. That I think is the colour which is likely to be put upon the naming of so long a term as five years after the war.
My noble friend who has just spoken, we all agree, is an excellent judge of whether the term of one year after the war would be sufficient to enable those who, under the encouragement of the provisions of the Bill, may desire to invest capital in these particular enterprises to feel secure that they will not be exposed to the particular kind of under-hand dealing which the Bill intends to prevent. I am not nearly as competent as he is to give an opinion on that point, but I confess that if the term of one year is considered so short that capital will not be forthcoming, I should be very glad if His Majesty's Government would at any rate meet the Amendment by some offer such as that which appealed to Lord Balfour of Burleigh—namely, that after a sufficient period the matter should be open to consideration with the intention of prolonging the period if it is found to be absolutely necessary by those who are best competent to judge. The purpose of that is, as I say, to remove from the Bill any suspicion that it represents merely a vindictive anti-German proceeding and not a serious attempt to secure our trade from wrongful dealings on the part of those who are now our enemies, and I am afraid are not likely, so far as intercourse is concerned, to become our friends for a considerable period after the war.
LORD HYLTON: I think, perhaps, it would be more convenient for the House if I should indicate now—
EARL RUSSELL: I was going to put a question to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill which I proposed to ask him to answer in the course of his reply.
LORD HYLTON: The attitude of the Government with regard to the Amendment of the noble Viscount below the gangway. A great deal of discussion took place on this point, as on other points, in

265
the other House, and the Government are unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The period of five years was carefully considered by the Board of Trade, and the Government have come to the conclusion that this is the shortest period during which it will be possible to attain one of the objects of the Bill. One of the objects of the Bill is, as your Lordships know, to enable capital to be procured and spent in this country in establishing or developing works for dealing with the refining and the manufacture of these nonferrous metals, owing to the lack of which we and our Allies found ourselves in such a deplorable position at the beginning of the war.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships this afternoon by repeating any of the observations I made yesterday, but I would like to ask the noble Viscount below the gangway, and the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, who spoke in favour of the Amendment, whether they are satisfied with the position in which we and our Allies found ourselves in regard to these metals at the beginning of the war, when this group of great German metal companies like an octopus had swallowed up and destroyed practically all competition in this country. The Board of Trade is advised that five years is the least period during which it will be possible to enable British capitalists to establish or develop works in this country to meet that competition. The noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, quoted the noble Marquess the Leader of tint Opposition in support, I think, of some at all events of his contentions; but I venture to think the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has shown a rather friendly spirit towards this Bill, because whilst indicating yesterday his preference for the Free Trade principle he at the same time admitted that there were certain industries—he instanced the optical glass industry as one, and I think the nonferrous metal industry as another—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: By no means all the non-ferrous metals.
LORD HYLTON: Some of them at all events, where the rigid insistence on the whole doctrine of Free Trade was not necessarily the course he would recommend. There has been more than one suggestion by members of your Lordships' House as to the period during which they think it
266
would be wise that after the war this Bill should remain in force. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, yesterday suggested a period of six months, and the noble Viscount below the Gangway now moves as an Amendment one year. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is not willing to admit that one year would be sufficiently long a period in which to attain one of the objects of the Bill, and in view of the advice that has been given to the Board of Trade that a period of at least five years would be necessary I am afraid His Majesty's Government are quite unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. The noble Viscount told us just now that it would be wise to see how the Bill worked, and that the experience gained during the war and a further short period afterwards would enable us to do that, and then if necessary the period could be extended. But, my Lords, I should much prefer, in fact the Government must ask the House, to allow the period of five years to stand, and if before that period has elapsed experience shows that the Bill needs Amendment it will be open to the noble Viscount or any other noble Lord to bring in a Bill for amending this Bill, but we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
EARL RUSSELL: I naturally gave way to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, but I think on the whole it would have been more convenient that he should have heard all the arguments before replying, particularly as I was going to present him with what I thought would be an argument in favour of his views. I want to put a question which I think is germane to this discussion. We have heard a good deal in the discussion on this Amendment as to the continuance of an economic war. I understand an economic war to mean preventing your economic adversary from getting goods, either by tariff control or any other method. What I want to ask is, is it not a fact that under this Bill as it stands there is not a word to prevent any of these companies under the Bill from selling the whole of their output to an alien enemy or anybody they choose, or buying from or dealing with or having smelting operations carried on by alien enemies? There is nothing, as I understand, in this Bill to prevent ordinary commercial intercourse, and nothing, in the ordinary sense of the word, that can be described as economic war.
LORD HARRIS: Might I ask a question with regard to something in connection with the Schedule which I do not understand. Clause 1, subsection (2), brings in the reference to the Schedule—"In the case of a company, firm or individual, with respect to which any of the conditions set forth in the, First Schedule to this Act apply." That brings in the Schedule, and on turning to the First Schedule I find there is a provision that "Any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager, or other principal officer … is a person who is or has been an enemy." Has been an enemy is a pretty wide term. How far back are you going?
LORD HYLTON: I am going to move an Amendment presently. It has nothing to do with the point before the Committee.
LORD HARRIS: I am entitled in Committee to refer to any question—
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is on Clause 10.
LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Lord did not reply to Lord Balfour's suggestion that two years might be inserted, with power to prolong by Order in Council.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thought it would not be fair to impose it upon the noble Lord without notice., and that any one who proposed it should give notice for a subsequent stage in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think, with regard to the question asked, one can see that there is no trace of economic war. The Bill is merely intended to prevent use being made of facilities for trading in this country for the purpose of injuring the interests of this country, and the machinery is as mild as it possibly can be. It is provided that in certain cases, where there is a possibility of such injury being contemplated by those who propose to carry on the business, that a licence should be required, and I do not think that machinery milder in its nature could be devised. It is not for the purpose of carrying on economic war. There is nothing vindictive about the measure at all. It is merely intended to prevent, under colour of trading in this country, an economic war being carried on by persons who take advantage of the facilities which we
268
afford. For these reasons, I put it to your Lordships that there is no reason for departing from the term of years which was agreed to in the Commons, and which, as we have just been informed by my noble friend, the Board of Trade, which is the Government Department concerned, consider necessary. There is at least a possibility that however friendly the position may be there might be an intention to carry on after the war operations with which we have become painfully familiar in the past. One year would not be long enough and five years I submit is not too long; and as my noble friend has said, if circumstances change an Amendment might be introduced with regard to the operation of the measure.
LORD HARRIS: On the term of five years, I think I should be in order. In my humble opinion, the Schedule applies to each clause, or may so apply, and I am a little doubtful whether the Lord Chairman was in order in interrupting me. Certainly I am in order to this extent, that I should be glad if he will explain to me how, supposing, as we all sincerely hope, peace is made within a year, the disadvantage of the five years applies, because all the clauses of the first clause of the Schedule refer to enemies, and I assume that after the conclusion of peace, whether it is a German or Austrian or Turk, or any of those countries which are referred to in the Bill, they will be our friends—if not our Allies at any rate not our enemies—and all these clauses in the Schedule which refer to enemies will not be operative. Therefore, the danger that the noble Viscount opposite. as I understand, sees in the term of five years, really ceases as soon as the war ends, with regard to the persons and companies referred to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble friend, when he comes to the Schedule, will realise that the Bill as drawn is not limited in the way that he suggests, and I apprehend it was for that reason that the Chairman took the view that the discussion would be more in point on the Schedule.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: If the Government had shown any desire to meet me as regards the term, I should not have thought it worth while putting your Lordships to the trouble of dividing, but as they intend to adhere rigidly to the term of five years, I am afraid I must go to a Division.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause ?—

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morton, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

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

Russell, E.

Strafford, E.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

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

Parker of Waddington, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Penrhyn, L.

Chaplin, V.

Rhondda, L.

Marlborough, D.

Peel, V.

Ribblesdale, L.

St. Davids, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Somerleyton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Balfour, L.

Stanmore, L.

Burnham, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Camperdown, E.

Carnock, L.

Suffield, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Sumner, L.

Grey, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sydenham, L.

Lichfield, E.

Harris, L.

Wren bury, L.

Lucan, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Haldane, V.

Lamington, L. V.

Harcourt, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Beauchamp. E. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L.

Loreburn, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Denman, L.

Weardale, L.

Bryce, V. [Teller.]

Inchcape, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 10 agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE. CONDITIONS.
1. That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual, is a person who is or has been an enemy.
2. That in the case of a company, any capital of the company is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen held by or on behalf of an enemy, including any stock or shares of the company-vested in the custodian by virtue of any order made under the Trading with the Enemy Acts, 1914 to 1916.
3. That the company, firm, or individual is or was at anytime after the twelfth day of November nineteen. hundred and seventeen party to any agreement, arrangement or understanding, which enables or enabled an enemy to influence the policy or conduct of the business.
4. That the company, firm, or individual is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen interested, directly or indirectly, to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital profits or voting power in any undertaking whether or not in the United
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 174.
Kingdom, engaged in business of a kind to which this Act Applies, in which enemies are also interested, directly or indirectly to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital profits or voting power.
5. That the company, firm, or individual, is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of their or his business to enemy influence or association.
6. That, in the case of a company, the company has issued share warrants to bearer and has not given notice under this Act requiring the holders of the share warrants to surrender their warrants for cancellation.
For the purposes of this Schedule—
The expression "enemy" means a subject of an enemy State and an enemy controlled corporation.
The expression "enemy State" means Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey.
The expression "enemy controlled corporation" means any corporation—

(a) where the majority of the directors or the persons occupying the position of directors by whatever name called, are subjects of such a State as aforesaid; or

(b) where the majority of the voting power is in the hands of persons who are subjects of such a State as aforesaid, or who exercise their voting powers directly or indirectly on behalf of persons who are subjects of such a State as aforesaid; or

271

(c) where the control is by any means whatever in the hands of persons who are subjects of such a State as aforesaid; or

(d) where the executive is an enemy controlled company or where the majority of the executive are appointed by an enemy controlled company.

The expression "capital" in relation to a company means any shares or securities issued by the company which carry, or would if the necessary formalities were complied with, carry any voting power with respect to the management of the company and shall also include debentures and debenture stock and money lent to the company.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved, in the first Condition, to insert the words "within five years before the passing of this Act" after the word "or," where it lastly occurs. The noble Viscount said: The reason I move this Amendment is the extraordinary limitlessness of the condition as it stands. The words by themselves look innocent, but when you come to the definition at the bottom of the page you see—
"The expression 'enemy' means a subject of an enemy State and an enemy controlled corporation.
"The expression 'enemy State' means Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey."
The Amendment of the noble Lord will not affect what I am going to say. The point is that according to this a man who forty years ago was an Austrian and got himself naturalised, and has been carrying on business all this time in this country, is preceluded, unless a special licence of the Board of Trade is given, from taking part in the direction of a company or being a partner of a firm. It is very awkward if the Bill is to go through in this form, and I will tell your Lordships why. There are certain industries where non-ferrous metals are most extensively used and some of the most prominent members of those industries are persons of remote enemy origin. That is to say, they were German or Austrian subjects many years ago but are now among our most loyal people. Take, for instance, such a place as Sheffield. There are those who have held high office as mayor of the city, who are engaged in the great metal industries of the place, who yet are of remote enemy origin, and who will certainly be affected by this provision. In the industries of Sheffield more and more such metals as vannadium and tungsten—metals which, whether they are enumerated in the definition of Clause 9 or not, are
272
metals to which the Act will certainly be applied—must be used for the purpose of those industries, and the people to whom I referred are precluded from assisting in getting them. Some of our most important men of business come within this category, as the matter stands. It may be twenty or thirty years since they belonged to an enemy nationality and they may be the most loyal people we have in the country, and vet they are struck by the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I suggest that what I think must have been the result of an oversight—the leaving of this definition without any limitation—should be subjected to this limitation, by putting in after the word "or" in line 6 the words "within five years before the passing of this Act." In that case anybody who within five years before the passing of the Act has been an enemy will be struck at, but anybody who was so at an earlier period will be free. Whether five years is the right period or not, twenty or thirty years, which the Bill proposes at the present time, seems to me to be altogether too long.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 6, after the second ("or"), to insert the words ("within five years before the passing of this Act").—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD HYLTON: I am afraid that the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount is one that the Government cannot accept. Your Lordships will remember that I pointed out yesterday that there is no question of refusing a licence ipso facto to a naturalised British subject, but, for the reasons which I stated, it is the opinion of the Government that it is necessary that these persons should have their cases reviewed and that investigation should be made. On the last Amendment I said I did not wish to trouble your Lordships by repeating to-day what I had already said in the Second Reading debate yesterday, but I may remind the noble and learned Viscount who has moved this Amendment that I had then to point out that there had been cases within the knowledge of the Board of Trade where naturalised British subjects had been found, even since the war had broken out, to be engaged in trading with the enemy. There is a case where the books of a firm of that kind were found to have been wilfully destroyed. Those who were responsible for the drafting of the Bill are of the opinion that it is necessary that in

273
the case of all naturalised British subjects their position should be taken into review and investigated. I am afraid it is quite impossible to exempt from the operations of the Bill, as the noble and learned Viscount wishes, those who have been naturalised for more than five years.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: If the Government have set their face against remedying what seems to me a grievous injustice, I, of course, cannot help it. It is not worth putting the Committee to the trouble of a Division if the Government have taken that attitude. I have expressed my protest as strongly as I can.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not know whether I can change the opinions of the noble and learned Viscount. I do not know whether the guarantee of a period of years is sufficient in this case. The point is not the length of time, but whether the person who has been naturalised has behaved himself like a British subject. There are some, undoubtedly, who have, and I hope their number is a much larger number than those who have not. The point of the Bill is to give power to scrutinise the records of those who have been naturalised and see whether, as I said last night, they have "played the game." A period of years is not a sufficient guarantee; it is the personal character of the man that is the best guarantee.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I should be much more influenced by the observations of the noble Lord but for the wording of subsection (2) of Clause 1—a licence is to be refused "unless the Board of Trade are of the opinion that the grant of the licence is expedient." The presumption is one which places the burden on the individual which he would find it difficult to overcome, and if the clause had been drawn as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour suggests, I should not have objected.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put to the noble and learned Viscount the class of case to which he refers. The Board of Trade might be of opinion that it might be expedient to grant a licence if it were established that the man, who was born a German, had been for a long series of years a loyal subject. In those circumstances the Board of Trade, of course, would have to exercise their discretion, and it may be
274
that they would come to the conclusion that there was no danger and the licence might be granted. I think that in those circumstances there is none of the grievous injustice to which the noble and learned Viscount referred. Naturalisation does not operate as a complete change, and, as we have learned by experience, there may be cases in which, although naturalisation has been gone through, the sympathies remain as they were before.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, in Condition 1, to leave out the words "an enemy," in order to insert "a subject of a State which is now at war with His Majesty or an enemy controlled corporation." The noble Lord said: At present the condition in the Schedule is as follows:—"That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual, is a person who is or has been an enemy." I move the substitution of the words of which I have given notice as I am advised they are necessary to cover the case of a firm where the partner is an enemy controlled corporation. The expression "enemy" has been defined to mean Germany. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, but the present wording, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, is unsatisfactory. It is doubtful whether a naturalised British subject of German origin, who lost his German nationality before the outbreak of the war, can be described as a person who has been an enemy, and the Government are of the opinion also that perhaps the suggestion might be taken to be rather unnecessarily offensive. It is, however, a drafting question.
Amendment moved—
Schedule 1, page 7, line 7, leave out ("an enemy") and insert ("a subject of a state which is now at war with His Majesty or an enemy controlled corporation").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON move an Amendment in the definition of the expression "enemy." The noble Lord said: This is merely a drafting Amendment and there is no change in substance. The present definition, which was altered in another place, is thought not to be quite satisfactory. We think this is better.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 34, leave out from ("of") to the end of line 37, and insert ("a state which is now at war with His Majesty and an enemy controlled corporation ").—(Lord Hylton.)
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I say that we do not propose to take the third Reading to-day, owing to arrangements about the Royal Assent. There are some small drafting Amendments that I propose to move on Third Reading on Monday.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MIDWIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

THE MINISTRY OF FOOD.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call the attention of the Food Controller to the speech delivered by Mr. Clynes at a special conference held in the Central Hall, Westminster, on December 29 last, and reported in The Times on December 31, in which the following statement occurs—
" The Ministry might fall short of what they desired to do, but he could tell them that,
276
speaking to a private gathering of the heads of the Government and some of the most powerful men in the country, Lord Rhondda had said, 'I don't care a hang who suffers, whose interests go under, if I can make this job of the Ministry of Food a success for the consumer'";
and to ask the Food Controller the following questions: (1) Is the statement attributed by Mr. Clynes to the Controller substantially accurate? and (2) To whom and to what class of person or persons was the Controller referring when he used the expression "I don't care a hang who suffers," and what was the industry or the interests he had in his mind when he expressed his complete indifference as to those "whose interests go under" provided he could make this job of his Ministry a success for the consumer; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology for the Questions which I have put on the Paper, because the statements referred to that have induced me to ask these Questions appear to me to be so unusual in character as to justify me in asking for some explanation in regard to them. Neither, my Lords, will it be necessary for me to detain you except for a very few moments upon this occasion. The statements referred to were made at a special conference held in Westminster Hall on December 29 and reported in The Times of December 31. I did not see them myself, nor was I aware of them until some time afterwards when my attention was called to them. Having seen them, I thought it right to put these Questions upon the Paper, and they have been on the Paper now for some considerable time. I have done this in order to ascertain precisely at whom the expressions of opinion on the part of the Food Controller were directed.
Your Lordships will remember that earlier in the session we had two or three different debates all of them upon the question of the policy with regard to meat. That was explained to us on the first meeting that we had by the Food Controller. His main object at that time—and I apprehend it to remain his main object—was considerably to reduce the prices of meat, and the general opinion, I think, of this House was that if that policy was pursued it would have a very deleterious effect upon the production of food, especially at this particular time when an enormous increase of food, if it be possible to bring it about in this country,

277
is a matter of the very highest and greatest importance. I share this opinion myself very strongly, and it is this which makes me all the more anxious to know, beyond all doubt, at whom these expressions of opinion were levelled, and exactly at what class and at what interest or industry the expressions to which I have referred were aimed.
But before I ask the two Questions on the Paper, I am going to put a third to the representative of the Board of Agriculture whom I see sitting opposite to me. I do this because, on more than one occasion when Questions have been asked as to the relations between the President of the Board of Agriculture and the noble Lord who is the Food Controller and his Department, differences of opinion have been expressed, and not only with regard to the Food Controller's Department, but also in relation, on one occasion which I remember, to the War Office. We were told one day in regard to one matter that the President of the Board of Agriculture was not only entirely in concurrence with what was being done, but that it had been done at his request. This was afterwards contradicted most emphatically, and your Lordships who were present will remember that the Secretary of State for War had to come down in what he called a "white sheet," acknowledge his mistake, and express penitence for the statement which he had made. Had it not been for that I might have had some hesitation in asking these questions. I do think that it is very desirable that any idea of want of harmony between the two Departments should be cleared up most positively in connection with a subject which at the present moment is of the first and utmost importance. What I want to ask of the noble Duke whom I see opposite is this, "what is the position now as between the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Controller of Food, and does the President admit the Food Controller's versions of his relations with the President which have been given on more than one occasion, and which apparently are intended to hold good up to the present time?
The statement attributed to the noble Lord opposite was made by Mr. Clynes, who said—
"The Ministry might fall short of what they desired to do, but he could tell them that, speaking to a private gathering of the heads of the Government and some of the most powerful men in the country—"
278
I am rather interested in that. I should very much like to know who they were—
"Lord Rhondda had said, 'I don't care a hang who suffers, whose interests go under, if I can make this job of the Ministry of Food a success for the consumer.'"
I am anxious to know precisely at whom these observations were levelled. It is not necessary for me to say anything further, at all events at present, except to ask the Questions which I have put on the Paper. I beg to move.
THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA): My Lords, I make no criticism at all on the propriety of the noble Viscount's asking me this question at the present time. I will endeavour to do my best to allay his anxiety. I may not be able quite to satisfy him, but I think I shall be able to assure him that I had not any particular industry or any particular section of the community in mind in the observations I made on the occasion to which he refers. I should like to make this clear. At the commencement of his remarks he referred to a statment—not my statement, but the statement made on December 29 at the Central Hall by the Parliamentary Secretary—
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: On your behalf, he said.
LORD RHONDDA: Not on my behalf exactly, but the statement made on that public occasion. The words used by me were not used on a public occasion at all. I desire to be very careful and precise in my interpretation of the remarks made, and quoted by Mr. Clynes, and, if your Lordships will allow me, I will adhere very closely to my notes. I cannot charge my memory with the precise words used on the occasion, but from what I am about to say the noble Viscount will be able to decide for himself to what extent the quotation was substantially accurate, I have repeatedly stated in public that I conceive it to be my primary duty to protect the interests of the consumer, and especially the poorer class of consumer, whatever obstacles or difficulties may stand in the way, and to this opinion I adhere. In saying that no vested interests must be allowed to stand in the way of securing fair treatment to the consumer, I have no particular industry in mind. My statement applies equally to all. I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that I had not the agricultural industry in mind, which evidently he had when he spoke.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: You were not referring to the agricultural industry?
LORD RHONDDA: I was not referring to any industry. My statement applied equally to all industries and to all sections of the community.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Then the agricultural interest was included?
LORD RHONDDA: It was included. If their interests stand in the way of the national interests at the present time, then my remarks would apply to them; but I do not admit—I do not think the noble Viscount would admit—that they do stand in the way.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I do not.
LORD RHONDDA: I certainly do not, and I have never said so. My view is that vested interests in the way of profit-making must give way to the national welfare. It is in the interest of the consumer that I have endeavoured to prevent prices from rising, and to lower them when they had risen unduly. We shall discuss that on another occasion; I think the noble Viscount is going to raise the matter next Wednesday. But I claim that my efforts in this direction have met with success in the case of those articles over which I have been able to exercise control.
The interests of consumer and producer are not necessarily in conflict, and I recognise that it is of the utmost importance that prices should be so fixed as not to restrict supplies. For this purpose it has been my policy to base prices on the cost of production and allow a fair rate of profit. I realise, I hope, as fully as the noble Viscount that the producer is entitled to a fair remuneration for his labour. I have endeavoured to be just without being over-generous, and to stimulate production without subordinating public necessities to private gain.
With regard to the third Question, I do not know whether the noble Duke is going to reply to that; but I can only say, what I have said elsewhere on a number of occasions, that the relations between the Board of Agriculture and my Department, and between Mr. Prothero and myself, are excellent and of the best.
LORD PARKER: My Lords I think that if the Food Controller could see his way to give the House some information as to how far he has succeeded, so far as the producers are concerned, or how far, on the other hand, his Orders have checked production, the House and the country would be more at ease on the matter. I think most of us who live in the country have very nearly come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Whereas in times past people who kept pigs and poultry used their potatoes when they could not sell them (which is generally the case, as they have a surplus in the country) for feeding their pigs, now they are prohibited, and pigs have ceased to he kept. On most farms, I am told by people concerned, cattle are ceasing to be kept. I am told that now an Order is about to go forth that no poultry should be kept. The country eggs are about the only things the poor people can get now from their chickens. They cannot get meat, and they cannot get a great many other things which are almost necessities of life, and it is all put down currently and popularly—I cannot say whether it is right or not—to Orders made by the Food Controller without consulting the interests of the producer.
Let me give one other instance. In my own parts of Sussex, which are seventeen, eighteen, or twenty miles perhaps from a market town, the ordinary practice of recent years has been for a farmer to sell to a local butcher direct. I understand that this has been rendered impossible. The farmer has to send seventeen miles to a market town. He may be eight or nine miles from a station. The railroads are congested, they have not the traffic sufficient for carriage, and it may take two or three days on the railway to get to the market town. At any rate, you want labour to drive the beasts to the railway station and possibly you have to drive them all the way to the market—for you cannot get railway accommodation. The local butcher has to go out to get his meat those seventeen miles, and he is in the position of having no conveyance, and he does not go. The result is that the parochial people do not get their meat. That is the result, as far as I can see, of an Order made by the Controller.
It may be that these are individual instances, and that the total operation of the Order is beneficial to the consumer. That I am not prepared to say. But I assure the Food Controller that it would

281
give great satisfaction if he could truly say that his Orders in regard to food have not checked production. So far as these Orders regulate prices they are, of course, for the benefit of the consumer; but if, at the same time, they check production so that the consumer cannot get the food at the price fixed, that cannot be of benefit. That is the bind of uneasiness which is prevailing, at any rate in my part of the country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I have listened with very great attention to what the Food Controller has said, and I think he will accept this summary of his statement—that in making use of the words quoted by Mr. Clynes he had not any particular industry, or set of persons, in his mind, but all who might be concerned with the production and distribution of food.
LORD RHONDDA: Any interests.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Agriculturists wore not specifically aimed at, but were included in the general scope of the observations. Secondly, he said that, in his judgment, the primary duty was to do the best he could for the consumers, especially for the poorer consumers; subject to this, that he desired to stimulate production, and to try to base his prices on the cost of production. None of us will take any exception to that statement of objects. None of us wishes to see profiteering by agriculture, or by any other industry connected with the production or the distribution of food.
We heartily welcome the statement of the Food Controller that it is his duty not only to regulate prices but to stimulate production; because it is evident that he cannot really serve the interests of the consumer if ho does not stimulate production; and he cannot stimulate production unless he is very careful not to fix prices below the cost of production. In my judgment—and, I think, in the judgment of many others in your Lordships' House—although his intentions have been exactly what he has stated them to be, the Food Controller leas on more than one occasion fixed prices below the cost of production, the result being to diminish instead of to stimulate the production of food in this country. I will not go into the details with regard to the matter of beef, which we discussed in this House some months ago. But I do not think that I am exaggerating when I
282
say that the forebodings we then expressed have verified themselves in fact; that the shortage of meat from which we are suffering at the present moment was foretold by us; and that this was caused by a mistake of the Food Controller in the rates he fixed at one particular period.
There is another thing besides care not to fix prices below the cost of production, and that is, not to use words which frighten those who are concerned with production. What I complain about in regard to the words quoted by Mr. Clynes is that this kind of language—although not so intended—does frighten ignorant men. After all, the great majority of farmers are small men, and that kind of language frightens them. They become Less enterprising, they curtail their commitments, and the result is increased shortage.
The noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Parker) has asked some very pertinent questions about the possible effect on production of certain Orders which have been made. I will take another Order. As it does not affect agriculturists in any way, and is very striking as an exemplification, I make no apology for taking it. I refer to the case of the wild rabbit. Now, if there is one thing more harmful to agriculture or to forestry it is the rabbit. The rabbit is the curse of those industries. One of the things from which both forestry and agriculture are suffering at the present moment is the increase of rabbits, because those whose business it was to keep the rabbits down have gone to the war. There is not one keeper looking after the rabbits on the land now for, I should think, three, or perhaps half a dozen, who were doing so before the war. Every landowner, or farmer, with whom I have discussed this matter has confessed that it has been a difficulty and an anxiety with him to keep down the rabbits. Just at the moment when that anxiety was getting most acute, the price of rabbits went up to 3s. That offered a very remarkable inducement to every kind of person—including anybody who could poach—to get rabbits; and I think it was of the greatest possible advantage to the poorer consumers that those rabbits should be obtained. It is not possible to control rabbits in the way in which the production of butter or of beef can be controlled. The Food Controller fixed the price of rabbits, with the result that the rabbit disappeared altogether from the market,

283
because the inducement which was stimulating people to catch rabbits had disappeared. That is the kind of thing which mill happen unless the utmost care is taken. I think that it is not in the interests of the poorer consumers, or of stimulating production, to make Orders which have that effect.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken quoted a very pertinent instance of the evil effect of fixing prices. He restricted his remarks, however, to the case of rabbits. I would take the case much further. I believe that this fixing of prices has been operating adversely in every direction. I know that the Food Controller is dealing with a problem of extraordinary difficulty, and one which is unprecedented in the history of this country. But it seems to me (and I say it with all humility) that the strenuous energy which Lord Rhondda has put into his task has been directed on wrong lines.
The Preamble to the Act instituting his office says, "The purpose of the office is to regulate the supply and consumption of food in such a manner as is thought best for maintaining a proper supply of food, and to take such steps as he thinks best to encourage the production of food." There is not a word in that Preamble about fixing prices. I remember reading a speech delivered by the noble Lord in the country in which he took credit to himself that most of his work had been in respect of fixing prices. In doing that I think that the Food Controller has sacrificed economics to politics. My own opinion, perhaps, would be worth nothing, but every agriculturist (including the Scots, who are a fairly hard-headed people), and those engaged in commerce, and also some of those who are purchasing food on behalf of the Government, have told me that they agree with the contention that the fixing of prices has retarded production and prevented importation of foodstuffs.
I will not weary the House with the many instances which I could give in this connection; but I will quote one gentleman whom I met two days ago, and who is largely responsible for making purchases on behalf of the Government. He told me that it was necessary to buy now three cattle where only two would have been sufficient before, in consequence, of course, of the decline in their condition. Therefore the result has been that at the present time
284
there are less sources of food in the country than there would have been if the Government had taken what seem to be the natural steps to take when there is a shortage of food, and that is to prevent waste and also restrict consumption by the individual and leave prices alone. Had the noble Lord directed his attention to preventing waste and to seeing that there was equal, fair distribution of food to every individual in the country, and left prices alone, it is my firm conviction that to-day the position would have been far better than it is.
In one of his speeches I remember he denied altogether that profiteering had been largely instrumental in the raising of prices. As some one tersely put it, in times of national crisis like we are going through now you must have high prices or else, no food. The way to stimulate production is to allow market prices to rise. There are plenty of powers in the hands of the Government to prevent profiteering, cornering, or anything directly against the public interest. Therefore it is in my view quite a wrong line of conduct which has been taken by the Government in trying to give a greater supply of food to the people of this country. I will not put the Question† which stands in my name on the Paper unless the noble Lord would like me to do so. I have nothing much to say about it. There have, naturally, been so many mistakes made by his Department in regard to Regulations that at the present time I believe those who are most desirous of complying with every edict of the Government with regard to the consumption of food are really very much mystified. As I say, mistakes have been made, and therefore I would ask whether the country should not be enlightened before a complete series of Regulations, which I hope will be short and simple, is put before them, and Parliament should have the opportunity of considering whether they are those most likely to fulfil the purpose we have in view.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the question which stands in the name of the noble
† The Question standing in the name of Lord LAMINGTON was as follows: To ask whether, in view of the Food Controller's statement that a system of compulsory rationing will be almost certainly introduced, His Majesty's Government will lay before Parliament the proposed scheme in accordance with the statement made on November 20 of last year by the Food Controller that he would see whether this House could he given the opportunity of considering the scheme before it became operative.
Lord, Lord Lamington, is to be regarded now as open to the consideration of the House, there are one or two words I should like to say upon it. In the first place I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Rhondda, that I have no desire to criticise or embarrass him. I know quite well that those phrases often preface some very embarrassing remarks, but they are none the less quite sincerely meant. I am quite satisfied that no man could possibly undertake the difficult and thankless office that he has undertaken unless he were inspired and supported by the strongest possible patriotic motives. Speaking for myself, I think that the noble Lord has discharged his singularly thankless duties with great courage and with some small modicum of success, but of course he must have been well aware from the very first that the work he had undertaken never admitted of any great public successful issue.
LORD RHONDDA: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: He must have known that some things were certain to go wrong and that he would consequently be abused whenever they did go wrong, and that if things went right it would be accepted as the normal administration of affairs and he would get very little credit for it. What I want to point out to him, and I trust he will accept it from me rather by way of suggestion than criticism, is that it is of the utmost consequence that every exhortation and instruction given to the public should be couched in the simplest, plainest and the fewest words. There were some instructions issued the other day which I was informed had become the subject of consideration by two eminent Judges, who professed themselves quite unable to understand what they meant. It is possible that with a little more labour they could have given a judicial interpretation which probably would not have carried out the meaning which the circular was intended to convey, but it is quite certain that if two men trained in the interpretation of documents found it difficult to follow the meaning of a circular like that, simple people who are not always familiar with printed documents will find themselves in grave difficulties and confusion when they attempt to carry them out.
I think it may be that the necessary length, it may even be the necessary difficulty, connected with these documents is part of the reason why the voluntary
286
scheme has so far broken down. I do not myself think that that is in any way the fault of the noble Lord, but I do think that it is the fault of certain members of the War Cabinet. The voluntary system, if it could have succeeded, would obviously have been the best and fairest method of distributing food in this country. It would have saved all the friction and the resistance which will certainly be caused if compulsory rationing is introduced, and I do not think the voluntary system need have failed. Considerable effort was being made by people in different localities to make it effectual, and of some of these I can speak from my own knowledge. But people are always anxious and willing to believe the thing they want to believe, and if you once relieve them from the anxiety and the urgent necessity for difficult privation and economy they will readily take advantage of the opportunity that is offered and consume more food than they should. Now that is exactly the result that followed from the speech that was made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, when he said that he no longer had any fear of the submarine menace.
Several NOBLE LORDS : Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Of course it is not the fault of the noble Earl who is Leader of this House, and, if I may say so, still less of the noble Lord. It merely embarrassed him and made his position more difficult than before. I do think it is a lamentable thing that for the purpose of gaining a brief Parliamentary triumph in an afternoon a great responsible Minister like the Prime Minister should have been so unguarded in his utterances and so careless of the consequences that might follow from what he said. That is one of the difficulties that I think has stood in the way of the voluntary scheme, and I think there are others, too. It is quite true that the food that is consumed at great restaurants makes but little difference in the total consumption of the nation. I dare say if you let them go on entirely unchecked, without restriction or limit at all, it would not make the least measurable of appreciable difference in the rations you are going to distribute among all the people. I quite agree with that. But if you are going to ask people to subject themselves to hardship, either voluntarily or under compulsion, it is of the utmost importance that every

287
example should be set in order to show that the nation is determined as a whole that there shall be no extravagance, not merely in the actual question of the rations but in every department they control.
It is therefore unfortunate that restaurants should have gone on until recently with slight limit upon their expenditure, because the advertisement and object lesson that was afforded by those places to people in the street who do not know what takes place inside are thoroughly misunderstood. People in the street are firmly convinced that they are places where luxurious and extravagant living is permitted, and it has an extremely bad influence on the public. It is to be found in numberless instances of action of a similar kind. At this moment what is needed is that every step that can be taken should be taken to brace and tighten the moral tension of this country, and if that is not done grave disaster may ensue; but the things that are done instead of bracing and tightening the moral tension of the country frequently tend to loosen and slacken it.
I will give another illustration of what I mean. When petrol was stopped motor cars proceeded to use gas. It was pointed out in the newspapers that the use of gas involved the abstraction of sail cloth from purposes for which it was required in connection with aeroplanes. Either that was true or it was false. If it was false it should have been contradicted at once, for the mischief of allowing a statement of that kind to go by without contradiction is immeasurable. If it were true, the Government should never have permitted a single car to have a gas bag on its roof. The matter stands in the same position to-day. Of two things, one. Either this does not matter and anybody can do it, or it does matter and nobody should be allowed to do it. This is merely an illustration of exactly what takes place with regard to all these matters. The Government really must remember that the people of this country are apt to be misled by example to a far greater extent than is generally believed. They misunderstand frequently and are possibly ready to be misled, but when they suffer hardships, as many have recently done in their attempt to get food, their minds are restless and uneasy, and they become an easy prey to discontent and ill-intentioned advice.
I trust that if these rationing orders become vital—and I understand they have
288
become vital—every step will be taken to make them as simple and plain as possible. Secondly, I hope that it will not be found necessary to flood this country with an endless band of inspectors and officials: that as far as possible voluntary and local work will be called in aid, in order to assist in the carrying out of the necessary schemes. Those local bodies will be able to do what is necessary, and that is to get into personal touch with the people to whom the rations will have to be distributed. They will know from their own personal knowledge what each person requires. It is my firm belief that it would be far better in certain cases, if an administration which is not too rigid be adopted, that some people should get more than they are accustomed to or ought to have rather than that you should cause, what I think will certainly arise, ill-feeling and discontent consequent upon having some of the simplest domestic details of life under the control of a vast number of officials, who cannot by any possibility whatever have had any experience of the work which they are called upon to perform.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to say a very few words upon the important question before us this evening, more especially with reference to obtaining the greatest production of food from the country. I quite agree with what has fallen from Lord Selborne and the noble and learned Lord with reference to the fear that the present conditions do not favour the greatest production from the land. Why? I am afraid that there is a want of confidence among the farmers as to what may be the order or the policy of the Government from day to day. They have great difficulty in looking ahead. Now, in any trading concern it is necessary to look ahead, and in the case of the farmers they are always liable to get a fresh Order with fresh prices named for them. Let me take the case particularly of milk. It is a commodity that we cannot obtain from abroad. It is entirely a home product. The Government have recently issued prices for the next few months, beginning April 1, and they have not included April as a winter month. Any practical farmer knows very well that April is one of the most difficult months for a farmer with a milking herd, and they ought to expect the Government to allow them for April the price that they have had during the winter months. We are now on January 31, and

289
they have that uncertainty before them that there is no Order yet as to their obtaining a fair and remunerative price for April next. The obvious danger is that those who are not satisfied with the prospect before them may sell their cows and give up rearing. You cannot replace these. COWS or their produce—at least it would take a long time—and therefore in the milk trade especially it is most important that the farmers should have some assurance that for some time to come they will get fair and remunerative prices for their milk. Otherwise they are certain to adopt other methods of farming. Milk is a case by itself. In the case of cereals, no doubt the prices will satisfy.
The Prime Minister last October paid a very generous tribute to the action of the farmers, and he told them they were doing everything they could in the most patriotic way for the good of the country. He alluded especially to two troubles which they had to face. One was the labour question, and the other was the weather, but I think he omitted a third and very important one, which is Government interference with their prices. I am far from suggesting for a moment that there should be no fixed prices. I quite agree it is a necessity, but I do think that in the interests of the nation, in order to obtain the highest possible produce from the land, it is important that the authorities in charge of this question should be a little more liberal in the prices that they fix. I have been at farmers' meetings, and I know there is a feeling of want of confidence and insecurity among farmers which does not tend to the greatest production possible, but on the contrary checks production, and so the nation will suffer.
I was glad. to hear that the relations between the Food Controller and the Board of Agriculture were very amicable. At the same time I cannot but suspect that the Food Controller in this case is the predominant partner. Be that as it may, I am sure the Food Controller will agree with me that if you are to secure the greatest output possible you must be able to show to the producer that he will secure a fair margin of profit between the cost of production and the price that he realises for his produce, and also that he has fair security that it will continue for a reasonable length of time. The noble Lord the Food Controller will correct me if I am wrong in saving that these two conditions are applicable to all
290
trading, and where you get the greatest output it is because there is a fair margin between the cost of production and the price realised, and a fair prospect of that condition being maintained. What the farmers want are a little more certainty and a little more security, and (if I may say so)—with the object which we all have in view of obtaining the greatest production possible—a little more liberality in the prices they are allowed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the various speeches that were made have covered so much of the ground that I have no desire to add to them. The noble Lord opposite has been asked a great number of questions, or at any rate a great many points have been put to him on which he may desire to say something further. My only object in rising was to make myself quite clear as to the Question which is on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Lamington. I understood him to say that he did not desire to press for a reply if the noble Lord was not desirous of giving one at this moment
LORD LAMINGTON: That was only as to when I should rise to speak.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My only object was to ask whether, owing to the course the debate has taken, the noble Lord opposite will be able to give some answer to the Question put by my noble friend as to how far he will find it possible to inform Parliament beforehand of the details of the scheme of compulsory rationing and—what I think would be particularly desirable for Parliament and the public to know—precisely to what articles it is intended to apply the scheme. Rationing is sometimes spoken of as though it must necessarily be applicable, or could hardly be otherwise than applicable, to articles of consumption of all kinds, whereas we know it may be limited to two or three of the more important; and if the noble Lord is able—I do not not say now, but at some period, a considerable interval, before the system is introduced—to explain to what articles it is to be applied, and any details that he may be able to produce, I think it would be a great service, not merely to your Lordships' House and to Parliament but to the public generally who are, of course, exceedingly interested.
I merely desire before I sit down to associate myself with much that has been

291
said on the subject of fixing prices. I am willing to admit, like my noble friend who spoke last, that there may be occasions when the popular demand and the popular alarm at the sudden rise of prices may make it hardly possible for a Government to resist the fixing of prices, but I also agree with the noble Lord who spoke before that any such fixing of prices is in itself a misfortune, and that where the ordinary action of the market can have play—every precaution, of course, being taken to make it impossible for any one of the individuals through whose hands the article passes to make an undue profit upon it—it is greatly to the public advantage. From the two instances that have been mentioned—that of the fixing of the prices of beef and mutton, and the later one of the fixing of the price of rabbits—I do not think the noble Lord can congratulate himself on the results which have been obtained so far as the encouragement of production is concerned. I fear that the actual effect produced in both these cases has been directly the opposite, and for that reason I trust that for any subjects of consumption of which the prices still remain unfixed the noble Lord will be very tender in fixing them.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply on the debate which we have had, certainly not at too great length, upon this very important subject. The first thing I may ask is this. The noble Lord says that from lack of memory he cannot say how far the language quoted in my Question as used by Mr. Clynes was accurate. Would it be impossible to ascertain from Mr. Clynes whether his memory is any better, and whether he adheres to the statement which he made. I think we have every right to ask that question and every right to be told, seeing that the noble Lord says he cannot charge his memory with the language that was used. The noble Lord says that he made it known immediately after he was appointed that all interests and all industries were included when he said he did not care what interests went under—that is to say, if they interfered in any way with the object he had in view of reducing prices. He told us that agriculture was certainly included, and immediately afterwards he denounced profiteering, in which I entirely agree with him.
LORD RHONDDA: Anything that stands in the way of the national interests.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am not defending profiteering; nor have I had any experience of it myself. What I do know is this, that both the Food Controller and the Prime Minister—the latter in particular in a speech the other day in the House of Commons (the speech that has already been referred to)—did resent most vehemently the attacks that have been made on farmers in that respect. The Prime Minister said they were utterly undeserving of them, and that he resented them entirely himself. Unless my memory fails me, I think I could find in a very short time observations not very dissimilar with regard to farmers by the noble Lord himself.
LORD RHONDDA: Certainly.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am delighted to have that admission from him. The noble Lord went on to say that it was of the utmost importance not to restrict the supply of food. Has he succeeded in doing that? Why, good heavens! if that was his object a more dismal failure has never attended any policy in the world. I do not know whether he is aware of it but I do not know myself at the present moment, having made careful inquiry, of a single butcher's shop anywhere in the West-end where I could go and buy a mutton chop to-day. I happen to live in a house where there are a series of changes. It is an establishment very well kept and managed by people who have to look after it. I sent for the manager to-day. He said "We have not had a piece of meat, or been able to get a piece of meat, for the last week or ten days"; although he had been dealing for themselves and their customers with a first-class butcher in the West-end who had supplied him for years. That does not sound as if the supply was unrestricted. I mention this because the noble Lord himself announced that it was part of his policy not to restrict in any way the supply.
I am going to ask another question, if I may. Under what conditions has it been that the noble Lord has pursued the policy he has ? Was he not warned by scores of deputations from England, Scotland, and Ireland, composed of men of long experience and knowledge of agriculture in every part of the country. Ah, my Lords, those Scottish farmers were indeed able and hardheaded men. I have known many of them for years, and I had the opportunity, by the

293
courtesy and kindness of the noble Lord, to attend the Scottish deputation which waited upon him, and I was able to be present all the time. I have received hundreds of deputations myself in my time, and I have attended a vast number of others, but never do I remember any deputation where the case of the farmers was so admirably stated, where the arguments used were so conclusive, and where the reply, if I may say so with all respect, was absolutely of the other description. But that is only one instance out of hundreds of others. The noble Lord was told, over and over again, by practical agriculturists, by men representing all the great agricultural associations in England, beginning with the Royal Society and going through all the other grades and societies existing on behalf of agriculture, by men versed in every detail of the breeding, the purchase, the feeding, and the sale of cattle, told also the same thing in this House on two or three different occasions, that if he pursued the policy which he had announced there would be a famine before the New Year. As a matter of fact, it came before Christmas.
Are we to suppose that all these men were talking of what they did not understand, that they were doing this for a joke and were not serious? Never were men more serious, because they knew perfectly well what would happen and the misery of it all. I will tell you later a little bit about the misery of it. Who were right, the men who told all this or the noble Lord, who persisted in turning a deaf ear to every remonstrance that was made to him and who insisted upon pursuing his policy despite everything that practical agriculturists could tell him? And what has been the result of his attempt to fix prices? It is a positive fact that the moment he has fixed the price of any particular article—and God knows there are many of them—the article in question has immediately become more or less scarce. At one time there was a complaint of the enormous number of rabbits. Prices were fixed, and who hears complaints about rabbits now? They have disappeared, and that is the case with almost every other article upon which he has placed prices. It is not in the least surprising; it is only the natural result of a policy which was, sooner or later, to follow.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, spoke just now of the rationing
294
orders. I agree very much with what he said. I think it is a matter of supreme difficulty, and, for the life of me. I do not see how it is to be carried out. Rationing orders have not come into effect yet, but the people in London, I do not care of what rank they are, have enormous difficulty in finding meat of any kind whatever. The noble and learned Lord mentioned some orders; I am going to mention others. My noble friend Lord Lichfield said there was a general feeling of want of confidence and security amongst the farmers. I have had that complaint from hundreds of farmers; every day from all parts of the country. It is absolutely true, and I will give another reason why it could not be otherwise. How many orders has the noble Lord issued from his Department in the last two or three months? The figures were given to me the other day—my memory is not so good as it was—and I have left them behind me, because I intended making only a short speech this afternoon. I am only led into making these remarks because I feel bound to reply to the statements of the noble Lord.
I think I am right in saying that the orders issued number something like 200 in the last few months. Just think of what that means to the farmers? They have no time to read orders. The only spare day they have, as a rule, is the market-day, when they meet together at the "ordinary" after the market. This long rigmarole of orders, if they had time to read them, probably half of them would not understand. Orders are issued one day and withdrawn the next, or shortly after, and sometimes orders are changed. I have received complaints, over and over again, that these orders should be issued at all and go forth without the sanction of the President of the Board of Agriculture. The one thing that is important at the present time is the production, and the greatly increased production, of food, and everything that has been done in my humble judgment and opinion by the Controller tends in exactly the opposite direction. That is one of the great reasons why you sec this shortage at the present time.
Let me say one word on another subject. I am going to give you a concrete instance of the enormous wastage of actual meat that has been caused by the policy of the Controller. On one occasion in these debates—I recollect it perfectly well—I

295
elicited in reply from the noble Lord that 250,000 immature animals were going to be slaughtered before they were fit for the butcher. I took the liberty of pointing out that I thought that a most dangerous and injurious proposal. First of all because we should lose an enormous quantity of manure at a time when it was specially wanted to increase the corn crops, and secondly because there would be an enormous wastage of meat. I took the opportunity of getting information as to the actual waste of beef that would otherwise have been placed upon the carcases of these immature animals if they had been allowed to get fit for the butcher, and had been fed in the ordinary way. There may have been some reason that I am not aware of for this very unusual and extraordinary policy. I can hardly think of any that would account for it, or that would justify it.
What was the result? I went for information to one of the biggest feeders in England, a man who feeds 1,000 cattle every year. His name is Overman, and he is widely known in all agricultural circles. I said to him "What I want you to get for me is this. What was the actual wastage of beef that would have been put on to the carcases of these animals if they had been allowed the ordinary opportunities of feeding?" What was so shocking to me was that there has never been so much grass in this country for years. It was extraordinarily fruitful and prevalent owing to the seasons, and to there having been plenty of wet during the summer. An enormous amount of this grass was waiting to be converted into beef, and a great deal of it has been wasted, and that at a time when there is exceptional difficulty in getting artificial feeding. I am told that there is a good deal of difficulty about getting the feeding stuffs. The man to whom I put the question got hold of the farmers who were in the Scottish deputation. He went down to Edinburgh, and saw them, and I got a letter from him in these words—
"We spent hours to-day in working this out. We have got every detail of the figures at every stage of feeding. And what is the result? In my opinion it is an under estimate, but I am sure that our figures cannot be impugned by any one. What is more, they are going first of all to the Royal Agricultural Society. What do you think the result was? 27,400 tons of beef thrown away which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been added to the carcases of 250,000 immature cattle."
296
I am aware that since then the Food Controller has found that it was impossible that 250,000 could have been slaughtered, but I believe that I am right in saying that something like 160,000 of 170,000 were slaughtered.
LORD RHONDDA: About 70,000 or 73,000, I think it is.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I believe that the noble Lord will find that there were a great many more than that, and if he will inquire at the Board of Agriculture and get their returns I think that he will find that I am right. But supposing the original policy had been carried out? I asked some Army authorities what it would mean. They said "If you put it at ¾ lb. of meat per man for the whole of the Army we have in France, it would feed that Army for something like one month." For how long would it feed the city of London, which is now wanting meat so badly, at the rations which the Controller proposes? It would feed them for months. I can give all the facts and figures or procure them at any time, and I am ready to challenge contradiction upon it. I know the man well whose figures I have given. He got them from the Scotch farmers who are the longest headed and cleverest men I have ever met in the farming world, and you may depend upon it that the conclusions which they came to are well worthy of the consideration of the Controller and of the Cabinet in particular.
My Lords, I feel bound to offer an apology for speaking so much longer than I had intended to do. I hope that I have not been, as I certainly did not intend to be, offensive to the Controller of Food, but I thought it my duty to say plainly and honestly what I think of his policy, and I am sorry to say that the longer it is continued, in my opinion, the worse will the position become.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I do not mean to make a speech, but I do not quite know, after the closing remarks of the noble Viscount, whether we are to have anything more from the noble Lord, Lord Rhondda.
LORD RHONDDA: Very little. I shall not attempt to reply to all the criticisms.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I was only going to ask one question. I think the

297
noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, referred to certain warnings which deputations to the noble Lord some months ago had given as to what was likely to take place. That I do not want, to go back on. But he also alluded to the same sort of counsel which was given in this House at the time of the fixing of the meat prices. I think that we had a one or two nights' debate, and the noble Lord was most good-natured in listening to everything that we stated, but he did not seem to me to be impressed by any of the points that we tried to make, or by the advice which we gave. He went on with his own policy, and his own policy has had certain results which have been brought out this evening. I think that we are entitled—the noble Lord himself would say so if sitting in his study—to the dismal satisfaction that a prophet, we will not say of a catastrophe but of trouble, is entitled to. I should like to ask him whether he is at all shaken by the results of that policy. I admire him for carrying out his policy, but does he think that it was right?
LORD RHONDDA: I was among the prophets.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Well, if the noble Lord was among the prophets I do not know whether I can apply a suitable biblical analogy to meet the situation. The noble Lord certainly paid little attention to the prophets, of whom he says that he was one. What I want to ask now is whether he considers that the prophets, among whom he numbers himself, were wrong? Is he going to change his policy? We have an admitted shortage of the raw material of food, and we have also a very considerable relaxation of motive all over the country through the course which has been taken. These are two very serious points. If the noble Lend still thinks that he was right in the line that he has taken in fixing prices, and intends to adhere to the line upon which he has fixed prices, it seems to me that the shortage and the relaxation of motive will continue. I should like him to say, "I am sorry this has taken place. Perhaps I should have been wiser to have listened to other people." If farmers think that this is going to continue I really believe that the agricultural conditions of the country, and the conditions of the consuming interest of the country, will get into a very serious position.
LORD RHONDDA: My Lords, the discussion has taken a course which was quite unanticipated by myself, and I do
298
not propose to attempt to reply to the criticisms that have been levelled against the Food Controller. I should be quite prepared to justify nay action—to defend, at any rate, and I hope to justify it—though I dare say I shall be in a minority as to whether I have succeeded in doing so. The noble Lord had on the Paper a Motion raising the whole general question of my policy. I presume that he will still raise the general question of policy, and when he does so I shill be prepared to give a considered and reasoned reply.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I was led into making a longer reply than I thought of making, but I intend to go on with the other Motion standing in my name for next week. Of course, if I had been going on with it to-day I should have given the noble Lord notice. I will take care that he has full notice at any time.
LORD RHONDDA: I hope the noble Viscount will go on with that Motion, and give me an opportunity of a detailed reply to his criticism. If I replied now, it would be merely repetition when he brings on his Motion raising the whole question of policy. I am quite prepared to defend my policy then. I am a new member of the House and I am not conversant with the Rules, but it does appear to me, after my experience in another House for twenty-three years, that the arguments used in the whole course of this debate are to a large extent irrelevant, and the discussion has not strictly arisen either from the Questions put by time noble Viscount or in any way from the reply I made. I shall at the proper time be prepared to defend my action in fixing prices. Frankly, I in no way regret that I have done so. Obviously the tendency of the fixing of maximum prices and of the reduction of prices must be towards a restriction in the supply and an increase in the demand. There is no getting over that fact.
But I maintain— and I hope I shall be able to satisfy at any rate some members of the House—that in fixing the prices as I have done I have had regard to a fair remuneration being left to farmers, and that I have fixed prices at such a figure as has not led to any substantial reduction in the supply. But I, Saul, was among the prophets, for I predicted last autumn, when the discussion took place in this House, that there would be a very grave shortage of meats after Christmas. It was inevitable in consequence of the fact that, whereas

299
hitherto in normal times the civilian population is dependent for its requirements to the extent of very nearly one half—over 40 per cent.—on imports, only the lessened imports that are now coming in are available for consumption. Consequently, there must inevitably have been a shortage. I maintain that that shortage may be due to a small extent to the increased slaughtering that took place in the autumn; it is due to a very small extent to that factor.
With regard to Lord Lamington's Question and to the remarks about it, Lord Buckmaster has asked that when any exhortation is made to the public it should be couched in simpler language. The noble and learned Lord will understand that I am not a lawyer; I have had no experience in the law, and I must be necessarily dependent on the Legal Department of my Ministry.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My humble suggestion is that you should abandon all legal phraseology and legal advice, and state in plain language what is wanted.
LORD RHONDDA: But the Orders that are issued have the force of law, and must be made as far as possible watertight. That is the difficulty. They have to be brought out quickly, and they must be precise in order to have legal effect. We do endeavour to carry out the arrangement suggested, because, on the issue of an Order, whenever we have time, we issue at the same time an explanation in popular phraseology of the meaning and extent of the Order.
With regard to the question of rations and the position of the Government at the moment, the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) is no doubt aware that local schemes of rationing are now being introduced in very many districts, under an Order made at the end of last month; indeed, I hope that early in March practically the whole country will be covered by local rationing schemes dealing with fats and in many cases also with meat, with power to extend to other articles. One unit will be London and the surrounding districts, including altogether 10,000,000 of population, or practically a fourth of the whole population of the country. There is another local scheme for Birmingham and the surrounding districts. We hope there will be one scheme for Scotland, another for South
300
Wales; and practically the whole country will be covered by these local rationing schemes by early in March. By this means we are gaining valuable experience which should save us from many of the dangers and difficulties hitherto inseparable from compulsory rationing.
LORD BURNHAM: Will the schemes be uniform?
LORD RHONDDA: We wish to make them as uniform as possible. That is very desirable indeed, and we issued a Model Scheme with the object of getting the local authorities throughout the country to arrange for uniformity. It has been decided by His Majesty's Government that at an early date these local schemes wilt be combined into one national scheme. I shall be quite prepared, if your Lordships so desire, to make a statement on the subject before the scheme is brought into operation. This will be done in as simple and clear language as possible. I shall be prepared, if your Lordships desire, to make a statement on the subject in the House before the scheme comes into operation. And I shall be prepared also to discuss with the noble Lord and any others who are interested in the matter any points which they may wish to raise as to rationing generally.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Viscount desire to press his Motion for Papers?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: No. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House until Monday, I wish to state that it may probably be my duty on Monday and Tuesday to move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in order to deal with the remaining stages of the Nonferrous Metal Industry Bill, and with the Irish Redistribution Bill the Second Reading of which we take on Monday next.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Monday next.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.