Lords Sitting of 3 July 1918

LOANS (INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Acts relating to loans to incumbents of benefices by Queen Anne's Bounty.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,— (Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend the representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House about the business for to-morrow. A Bill to amend subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, which was read a first time yesterday, has been put down for Second Reading to-morrow. Without saying anything about the merits or otherwise of that Bill, I would call attention to the fact that it has not yet been circulated. In my judgment it is a measure of considerable importance, though consisting of only a few lines, and I am sure that your Lordships ought to have an opportunity of considering it. In these circumstances I would ask that the Bill be postponed, and that the Second Reading be not taken to-morrow.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD or AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, I recognise the reasonable nature of the request of my noble friend. The notice is undoubtedly very short, but there is need for some haste in the matter, because the power which the Act provides will expire next month. But if I can get some assurance, or, at all events, some understanding, that no objection will be taken to proceeding with the Committee stage very shortly after the Second Reading, I shall be willing, with the leave of the House, to take the Motion for the Second Reading of the Paper for to-morrow and to put it down for next Tuesday. But I hope the noble Viscount will raise no objection to the Committee stage being taken the same week.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am not in a position to give an undertaking for any one except myself, but as far as I am personally concerned I think it would be desirable that the Bill should be postponed rather longer than that. Communication is not very easy in these days, and when your Lordships' House separates at the end of the week I do not think that noble Lords always get the information with regard to business very rapidly. Would the noble Lord object to making it next Thursday, instead of next Tuesday? There would still be ample time, and as far as I am concerned I would offer no objection to the Bill going into Committee after being read a second time in the ordinary way.
LORD CLINTON: I am afraid I must ask the noble Viscount to be satisfied with a postponement until Tuesday, because this is the commencement of the Bill; it has to go through both Houses, and, as I have stated, there is need for haste in the matter. Therefore I do not think the Second Reading ought to be put off beyond Tuesday, and I shall put it down for that day.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I did not realise that the Bill had not been through the other House; and I agree.

THE LATE VISCOUNT RHONDDA.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed with deep regret the intimation in the newspapers that Lord Rhondda has passed away. There is something pathetic, something almost tragic, in the circumstances of his death, for truly it may be said that Lord Rhondda died in harness and that he undoubtedly shortened his life by the severity of his exertions in the interests of the State. Many of us had known Lord Rhondda in a public and Parliamentary capacity long before he entered this House. He was for nearly twenty-five years a Welsh Member in another place, distinguished for his faithful service there, and also for a reputation for business capacity of quite an unusual character; but with the present war it may be said that his real opportunity came. In 1915 he was sent out on a special Mission to the United States and Canada in connection with the supply of munitions,

549
and those who were behind the scenes know well how successfully he discharged that duty. With the formation of the present Government at the end of 1916 he became President of the Local Government Board, and took a seat in your Lordships' House. It was in June, 1917, just a year ago from now, that he assumed the difficult and thankless post of Food Controller. I might mention that it was on his return journey from the successful Mission in the United States to which I have referred that Lord Rhondda was one of the victims of the shameful attack upon the "Lusitania," and I believe there can be no doubt that his experiences on that occasion very materially weakened his health; so much so, that when the post of Food Controller was offered to him his doctors showed the utmost reluctance in allowing him to undertake so arduous a task. His sense of public duty prevailed, and he assumed the burden. How difficult and how delicate it was, nobody knows better than your Lordships. He had to accustom the people of this country to restrictions upon their everyday method of life which were unpalatable, irksome, and novel. How well he did it is now a matter of common knowledge. I suppose it would be true to say that Lord Rhondda was the only popular Food Controller in Europe, and so well did he and those who act with him carry out their task that the people of this country almost contentedly hugged the chains which it was the duty of Lord Rhondda to place upon them. I think, my Lords, that his success was due to three things. Firstly, to the business experience and faculty of organisation to which I have referred; secondly, to the possession of an unruffled temper—your Lordships had experience of his imperturbability on different occasions in debate in this House; thirdly, to the great trust which he always reposed in his subordinates, from whom he obtained the most loyal and devoted service. In these ways Lord Rhondda was able to achieve a success which is often denied to men who fill a more dramatic part on the stage of public life, and the vacancy caused by his death is one which the Government and the country will find it difficult to fill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Crewe, I wish to say how sincerely on this side of the House we find ourselves in sympathy with everything that has fallen from the noble Earl. Lord Rhondda was a superb man of business, and by his
550
management of a very difficult question he gained the confidence of the people of this country in a remarkable degree. As the noble Earl has pointed out, one of his great gifts was his power of appreciating the help that the best experts could be to him, and his willingness to make use of the best talent wherever that talent offered itself. The result of this great gift in administration was that, directed by his business mind, the management of affairs under him was a great success. The country recognised this, and the nation is poorer for his loss, for it will be very difficult to fill his place. On behalf of my noble friends and those associated with us, I wish again to express our deep sense of the loss which this House as well as the country has suffered, and our complete concurrence in all that has fallen from the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, as I have unfortunately felt it my duty sometimes to oppose the policy of Lord Rhondda, I wish, if I may be permitted to do so, to say in a very few words how entirely I sympathise with what has fallen from the Leader of the House and from my noble friend sitting on this Bench. Indeed, although it is true that I have sometimes felt myself compelled to differ, and differ acutely, from Lord Rhondda in some portions of the policy which he has pursued, yet I do most profoundly regret the premature decease, as I regard it, of a political opponent. Whenever we differed, I am quite certain of one thing—namely, that we differed solely because he did what he felt to be his duty, and it is on those grounds that I desire to express the deep sympathy which I am sure is shared by all your Lordships at the premature decease of the noble Viscount in the cause of what he felt to be his duty.

THE WAR OFFICE AND HAY.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the procedure of the War Office in regard to hay, and to ask—

Does the War Office intend to take away after September 30 next all hay of the crop of 1917 which may then be unconsumed on any farm.

551

Will the War Office postpone any decision as to taking what remains of the 1917 crop till it can be ascertained for certain that the hay crop of 1918 will be quite sufficient for the requirements of occupiers of land till September 30, 1919.

What is the amount of hay which the War Office estimates will be required for the year ending September 30, 1919, for the farmer, the Army, and the civilian.

How do the War Office ascertain the requirements of these three classes.

How and by whom are the Committees constituted who give licences for the sale of hay.

Whether, when hay belonging to a farmer has been released by the military authorities, it can be sold to a consumer at the price which the consumer would have had to pay if he had bought from a dealer; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office a series of Questions which I have put on the Paper fully, so that I should not take him unawares as regards any of them. In putting them I may say that, while I recognise the courtesy and consideration of the higher officials of the War Office and the Board of Agriculture in dealing with the question of hay, undoubtedly a good deal of friction has arisen from the fact that gentlemen, clothed in khaki as a rule and with a little brief authority, come down upon the farms and treat the farmers in a way in which they ought not to be treated—in a very rough and ready way. Such an official says, "I am going to take the whole of your hay. You cannot have any objection. I am going to commandeer it."
I have a letter here from a member of your Lordships' House, in which a noble Duke says he is very glad that I am raising this question. Only the other day a military officer appeared upon the farm of one of his tenants—it is a farm of 200 acres—and said that he had come to seize all the hay except ten tons, in spite of the fact that it was explained to him that, owing to the drought, it was unlikely that the farmer would have at all a large crop of hay this year. It is a heavy clay farm where often they do not hoe till August. The probability is that this officer was only
552
authorised to say, "We shall only leave you ten tons, and you will have an appeal afterwards as regards the quantity you may want." But the impression left on the minds of the farmers of this country by the officials—the minor people—who go to them like this, is that the Government are going to seize everything and that the farmers will be left without any hay at all.
As the noble Earl knows, it looks as if we are going to have a very small hay crop indeed, and, should the drought continue, it will be a very serious matter for the farmers if the hay crop is taken. Under present conditions I think it would be unwise for the Government to take any hay at all, or to hamper the farmers in the matter until the hay crop is assured and they know the amount that will be available for the coming twelve months Otherwise, what inevitably will happen will be that farmers, like the tenant of the noble Duke, will say "If they are going to treat us in this way we shall kill off our stock and turn our cattle into the hay field at once. What is the use of saving hay for the Government to take it away from us?"
I should like to ask the noble Earl my first Question as to the hay crop of 1917—whether they intend to take the whole of that? According to the letter that I have quoted, it would appear that they are going about telling farmers that they are going to take the whole of the hay crop, except a small quantity which in their judgment—not the judgment of the farmers—is deemed to be sufficient for the farmers until September 30 next. I do not see how it is possible, even for experts, to estimate requirements in this matter, and it would be a great thing if the noble Earl could give some assurance that there is not going to be any commandeering wholesale in the matter, but that the Government are going to wait and see how it is going on.
In my second Question I ask as regards the requirements of this year, and how they are going to ascertain what the hay crop is going to be for next year. How is the noble Earl going to estimate the amount of hay which he thinks is required? I have been told—I do not know whether the noble Earl will agree—that the War Office or the Board of Agriculture estimate it at about 11,000,000 tons as an average crop. If the average crop is 11,000,000

553
tons it is very unlikely that there will be anything like that amount this year. No doubt the noble Earl will tell us. If the demand for the War Office is, say, 1,000,000 tons, and for the civilian population another 1,000,000 tons, that leaves 9,000,000 tons for the farmers; but, on the other hand, supposing there are only, 9,000,000 tons coming in, what are they going to do? Are they going to reduce the farmers to 7,000,000 tons? Then I should like the noble Earl to consider another point. Owing to the likelihood of there being a great shortage of roots and straw (because they will be affected in the same way), this fact will make it more necessary to use a larger amount of day than if we had a good crop of roots and straw. Further, as the noble Earl knows very well, there must be a great reduction anyhow in the hay crop this year from the fact that a great deal of grass land has been ploughed up—improperly ploughed up, in my judgment—when it was too late to crop it. That is land which ought to be simply bare arable fields covered with grass at the present moment, and which might have produced a good hay crop. I do not think I need go further into details because my Questions sufficiently explain themselves. I hope the noble Earl, on behalf of the War Office, will give an assurance to agriculturists and farmers that they are going to be treated fairly, if not leniently.
I am glad to think that one advantage has accrued from having put the Question on the Paper of how and by whom the Committees are constituted. It has had a good effect, because instead of the preposterous method that has existed until lately, whereby the people who made the allotments were the hay dealers themselves, I understand that since the Question appeared on the Paper there has been an announcement that the Committees now will be constituted on another and a fairer principle, and that the farmers will have one-third, the consumer one-third, and the hay dealers one-third of the representation. I think this will remove a good deal of the grievance in the matter, but I hope the noble Earl will give a sympathetic reply and some assurance on behalf of the War Office that farmers will be treated well and that great care will be taken that they shall have a full supply of hay in the coming winter—a supply that will be enough for them for all contingencies. I hope also that the noble Earl will say that there is no idea of rationing farmers as regard
554
hay, because it is perfectly impossible for the farmer to say the amount of hay he will want for his stock. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who has put these Questions on the Paper that the War Office has every intention of dealing fairly and justly by the farmer. Perhaps before proceeding to reply to the Questions which he actually puts, it would be advisable if I gave the House a very short précis of the arrangements which have come into force as the result of the award made by Sir Arthur Lee on April 29. I feel sure that your Lordships would wish to congratulate the right hon. gentleman on the honour conferred upon him in his having been elevated to your Lordships' House, and I can only regret that he has not already taken his seat in order that he might explain the very able award that he made.
In each county there is to be set up an Allotment Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred. This Committee will consist of three members, representing the producer, the dealer, and the horse owner. These County Committees nominate representatives on a Central Council. The Central Council will consist of sixteen members, one being the representative of the War Office, and the remaining fifteen will be nominated from the five Departments into which Great Britain is divided. The duty of the Central Council will be to recommend any modifications of the existing scheme for the 1917 crop and to survey the whole problem for 1918. The Forage Committee has been reconstituted. It sits under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Trustram Eve, and consists of eighteen members. In addition to the chairman, there is an ex officio member—the Chairman of the Central Council to which I have just referred—and sixteen representative members, seven representing the various Government Departments concerned, and nine representing the hay producers, dealers, and consumers. The duties of the Forage Committee are to keep in touch with the County Farm Produce Committees and to deal with, and advise on, all matters relating to the acquisition of farm produce for His Majesty's Forces, and the purchase and distribution of the civil supplies of forage.
In regard to the Question of the noble Lord on the Paper, the War Office will only

555
take from the holder so much hay as is considered a surplus to his reasonable requirements. Occupiers of land have used a good deal more hay than had been anticipated, and I am afraid the situation in regard to hay is not a very good one. It is not possible, therefore, to postpone the taking of this decision until after September 30, and this not in the interests of the Army but in the interests of the civil population. I think the noble Lord will agree that the occupiers' interests will be safeguarded because they have the right of appeal to the County Farm Produce Committees, which are composed entirely of tenant farmers.
In reply to the next Question on the Paper, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord any exact estimate of the amount of hay required for the year ending September, 1919. We hope to get a more exact figure, but, as the noble Lord knows, it has to be worked out on the number of animals that will require feeding. For the farmer the amount will be what he actually requires for the stock in his possession or control. The actual quantity will be decided by mutual agreement between the farmer and the Army purchasing officer, and failing agreement it will be referred to the County Farm Produce Committee. The requirements for the Army are about 1,000,000 tons. That amount is based on the established strength of animals in the Forces. The amount required for civilians is believed, by the War Office, to be approximately the same amount—1,000,000 tons—and is based on the amount that was released to civilians in the year ended July 31, 1917.
As your Lordships are aware, a Rationing Order came into force on July 11, and all owners of animals are being asked to register them with the dealer with whom they used to do business in previous years. We therefore hope very soon to know the exact number of animals which it will be necessary to feed, and by the Rationing Order the amount of hay that will be required. I understand that in Beloochistan horses are given no hay at all, but do extremely well on chopped straw and dried alfalfa, and it is hoped that horse-owners in this country may be prepared to follow, to some extent, some similar plan.
Licences for the sale of hay are given by the Army purchasing officers. When the register of animals has been completed the County Allotment Committees will
556
authorise the dealer, or producer, to supply forage in accordance with the number of animals registered upon his list. I think we shall therefore meet the point to which the noble Lord referred—namely, that the Allotment Committees are a preferable arrangement to its being entirely in the hands of the hay trade.
In regard to the last Question on the Paper, the producers can sell direct to horse-owners, and are then treated as dealers and can charge the same price. There has been, I think, a certain amount of annoyance caused because in some cases farmers have been charged for the cost of administering the scheme. What has happened is this, that any one who has the advantage of the £2 difference in price between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 can be charged for the cost of administering the scheme up to a maximum of 5s. per ton. Actually the price has been somewhat between 2s. and 3s.
We hope that hay will be dealt with more carefully in the future. As your Lordships know, there is an Order in regard to the wastage of fodder, and in view of the almost certain increase in the price of hay we think farmers and others will be more careful not to waste what they have got. I do not think the War Office takes quite so gloomy a view of the hay crop as the noble Lord opposite. I do not know what the Board of Agriculture say about it, but I understand we hope to have somewhat of an average crop. It will not be, perhaps, quite so large as last year's because the acreage under grass, as the noble Lord knows, has probably been reduced by about 10 per cent. We cannot certainly hope to have anything like the very big crop we had in the year 1916, but we hope it will at any rate be not a short crop in most parts of the country.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I hope I may take the noble Earl's reply as an assurance on the part of the Government that farmers may rely on being permitted to retain an adequate allowance of hay for the maintenance of their flocks and herds during the winter and early spring months. I am sure the noble Earl, and the Department he represents in this House, will agree with me that one of the most serious questions is the depletion of the number of breeding ewes in this country. The maintenance of our flocks is one of the most important

557
questions of the present day, and every encouragement should be given to owners to increase the number of breeding ewes. Therefore, I attach great importance to a sufficiency of hay being provided.
I notice that the noble Earl did not give a specific answer to the first Question of the noble Lord—as to whether the War Office intends to take away, after September 30 next, all the hay crop of 1917 which may then be unconsumed on any farm. I sincerely hope there is not going to be a hard-and-fast rule that all the hay that may be in the farmers' possession on that date is going to be taken out of his hands. I know you may say that this is not a very important point, because, as a matter of fact, in many counties at that date there will be very little old hay at all left. Most persons in my part of the country have an exceedingly small quantity of the 1917 hay crop in their possession at the present moment, but in individual cases it may be a very great hardship if you take away all that remains of that crop in the farmers' possession on September 30.
I know of a concrete case, in which a farmer, who is also an occupier of land and a large fattener of cattle, is fortunate in having a very considerable amount of the 1917 hay crop in his possession, but on the other hand is unfortunate because his grass land has been ploughed up, with the probability of his having a very short supply of hay for this year. With the number of stock he keeps he will be placed in an extremely serious position if it is proposed to compulsorily take away his whole hay crop. I sincerely hope there is no intention on the part of the War Office, or the Board of Agriculture, to forfeit all the old hay which farmers may have in their possession on September 30. I trust that a reasonable view will be taken, and that in asking a farmer to compute what his requirements will be during the winter and summer months due allowance will be given for the old hay that is in hand, as well as the crop from the hay harvest this year. I shall be glad if the Government will give some assurance on this point.
LORD STRACHIE: Before the noble Earl replies, perhaps he will allow me to ask him whether he can give an assurance that the War Office will issue a circular to their purchasing officers telling them that in all cases they may inform the farmer that if he is not satisfied with their
558
action he has a right of appeal to the County Produce Committee. It is quite satisfactory that the farmers have this appeal, but at the present moment the majority of them do not know of this right. The ordinary farmer, and especially the small farmer, thinks that if a man comes in khaki and gives an order he simply has to obey it, and that if he does not he will probably be taken away and put in prison. If all farmers were made acquainted with the fact that they have a right of appeal it would be more satisfactory, and I hope the noble Earl will undertake to do that.
EARL STANHOPE: I think that certainly the War Office will be able to inform farmers that they have a right of appeal. I am sorry that I did not make it clear to my noble friend that the War Office had no intention of taking away all hay in any case, but only where it was found to be surplus to the ordinary requirements.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Surplus to the requirements? In a part of Sussex in which I have a small interest the officer states that he has been ordered now to take away from farmers all hay that they are likely to have after September 1, and he has taken my hay away. I have a copy of the letter, and will send it to the noble Earl if he wishes. My noble friend's speech this afternoon has certainly given us the impression that these orders have not been issued from the War Office, and I hope that at any rate he will inquire into the matter, for it is very serious in the part of Sussex with which I am connected. The surplus of September 30 is being taken away now.
EARL STANHOPE: I did not mean to imply that the hay surplus on September 30 was only to be taken then; it is the hay which it is estimated will be surplus at that date.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: One is only allowed to keep sufficient now to last till September 30.
EARL STANHOPE: No.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have that in writing, and I will send a copy of the letter to the noble Earl. If my reading of it is correct, I hope that he will stop the officer from doing what he is doing.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, before this matter is disposed of, I would beg the noble Earl to take into consideration the singularly unfortunate position in which farmers have repeatedly been placed by the different Departments of the Government, owing to all of them issuing Orders, and to some of those Orders being entirely contradictory, creating the greatest confusion and disgust among hundreds of farmers throughout the country, who never know from day to day what their position is going to be. One of the first essentials to successful farming is that the farmer should know exactly the position in which he is placed, and upon what he may count for certain that he will be called upon to do. He must know in ample time what it is that he is going to be called upon to do. That has not been the case hitherto. The complaints of farmers are numerous from all parts of the country, and many of those complaints that I myself know are thoroughly well founded. I have had endless cases sent to me to which no reply has ever been made that I am aware of. Sometimes when farmers have gone themselves to the War Agricultural Committees the responses there have not in all cases shown that due regard to the farmers' interests which they ought to have shown. I hope that the noble Earl will place this as definitely and as strongly as he can before the authorities who are responsible, and endeavour to do something to remove the complaints which I am quite certain hundreds of farmers in all parts of the country are justified in making at the present time.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMENDMENT) 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 Clinton.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee, I should like to call attention to the extraordinary way in which the officials of the Board of Agriculture have behaved in regard to the Return that was promised relating to the Patrington colony. On June 12 last I called attention to the Report on the Crown colonies, and to the very unsatisfactory accounts given for nine months, and I then had on the Paper a Resolution that a detailed balance sheet
560
for the Patrington small holding colony for 1917–18 should be presented to both Houses of Parliament forthwith. During the debate Lord Goschen, who then represented the Government, admitted at once the very unsatisfactory state of the accounts, and promised that a detailed account should be submitted as soon as possible. On that I withdrew the Motion that stood in my name.
Later, when the Motion was down for the Second Reading of the Bill, and, owing to the illness of Lord Goschen, was postponed, I asked my noble friend Lord Crawford if he would hasten the matter. He kindly said that he would. Nothing has come of that. In the debate it was again alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who I do not wish to blame for the matter, as he has only just undertaken the duty of representing the Board of Agriculture. He made the following statement—
"The cash account is, I believe, very nearly ready and it should be in a position to be placed before your Lordships in a very short time. The profit and loss account, I am informed, is likely now to be made up to Michaelmas next, and will not be ready for your Lordships, of course, until after that time."
There must be an inability on the part of the Board of Agriculture to understand the difference between a Lady Day tenancy and a Michaelmas tenancy. A farm is taken over in Lady Day (April). A man I goes out in April, and naturally he has all his accounts ready. But the Board of Agriculture after nine months have not been able to produce these accounts, and they are now trying to postpone them till Michaelmas. This makes one suspicious of the reasons given for all this delay.
I think that the House has a perfect right to have full information on the management of the colony before it goes further into the matter. Therefore I sincerely hope that the House will support me if I give notice to-morrow that I will move that a detailed balance sheet differentiating between capital and annual farming expenditure for the Patrington Small Holdings Colony for the farming year April, 1917, to April, 1918, be presented to both Houses of Parliament forthwith. I think, when the Board of Agriculture seem unable now in July, to make out the accounts of the colony for April, 1917, to April, 1918, it is an extraordinary thing, and the sooner this is put right the better.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount is very suspicious of the accounts of the Patrington estate. There have been, know, considerable delays in preparing these statements, but the noble Viscount should remember that this is the beginning of the management of this large farm of Patrington, and it is difficult, at first, particularly when no model farm accounts have yet been brought out, to put before your Lordships an intelligible statement at the expiry of the first year. At the request which was put forward during the Second Reading of the Bill a week or ten days ago, I had prepared an account which I hope the noble Viscount will consider is at all events an effort to put before your Lordships the information in our possession. The noble Viscount asked particularly about the failure of the Board to understand the difference between a Lady Day and a Michaelmas entry. The Board have decided to make up their accounts to the term of Michaelmas, and in my opinion, although I understand it is not the custom in the East Riding of Yorkshire—
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Nor in Nottingham.
LORD CLINTON: It is a very considerable advantage in a purely grain growing farm like Patrington to make up your accounts to Michaelmas, because that is the end of your farming year. The crops are off the ground, you are starting your ploughing for the new crops, and I am perfectly confident—it is a practice I follow myself—that on such farms the accounts are more conveniently made up to that date. I do not think, however, that the date is of very great importance as long as every year the full financial position of the farm is put before Parliament.
If the noble Viscount desires it, I can give him the figures which have been prepared for this purpose. I give them in round numbers. Live stock have been purchased to the amount of £15,000. The accounts that I am dealing with, I may say, are from April, 1917, and I am carrying them on, with valuations, up to the time when we intend to close the accounts at Michaelmas. The other items are:—Feeding stuffs and seedmen's charges, £8,000; implements, etc., £6,000 (that is for the Period of a year and a half); rent for the same period, £4,900; wages and national insurance, £10,000; interest on capital expenditure (that is, the interest upon the
562
new buildings which have been put up), £1,400; and various items, bringing the total expenditure up to £50,000.
On the credit side the actual receipt for live-stock, wool, corn, seeds, etc., amount to £11,600. The estimated value of stock, crops, implements, and grain crop are £46,000. The grain crop has been taken as the average yield during the last ten years in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and the price given is the maximum price of the day. I may say that I think that this value will come out probably more favourably to the estate because the crop is decidedly a good one. This shows an estimated balance for the one and a half years of a little over £8,000. It will show a profit after paying rent and all outgoings, including interest on capital expenditure for the one year of £5,200 or £5,300, which represents very closely the double rental upon which you will have to pay Income Tax.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving me these particulars; still they are very difficult to make out in a speech. I urge that they should be printed as a proper Return instead of being merely stated in a speech; it would he very much more satisfactory to the House and to the country at large.
On Question, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee, accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Increase in area of land which may be acquired for purposes of s. 1 of 6 & 7 Geo. 5, c. 38.
1. Subject to the provisions of this section, subsection (3) of section one of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purposes of that section, shall have effect as if forty-five thousand acres were therein substituted for four thousand five hundred acres, twenty thousand acres for two thousand acres, and sixty thousand acres for six thousand acres, and paragraph (c) of section eleven of the principal Act, which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purposes of the said section one, shall have effect as if twenty thousand acres were therein substituted for two thousand acres:
Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, have been acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised to be so acquired, the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of a rentcharge or other annual payment.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after the words "sixty thousand acres for six thousand acres," to insert "Provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils as their agents and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them in addition to those vested in such councils by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, as I indicated on the Second Reading, is to empower the Board of Agriculture, if they so wish, to delegate their powers to county councils for creating these small colonies in different parts of the country. The noble Lord will see that the county council may, under the Amendment, if they so wish, say they do not desire to undertake this duty but, if they are ready to undertake it, I think there is no better body, and they are much more likely to make a success of such management than it has been up to the present moment.
I notice that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill said the scheme was an experiment in a system of small holding colonies. I am rather surprised at that, because, if it was only an experiment, surely what has been done already with the 8,000 acres is sufficient, and you do not need to increase the experiment by another 60,000 acres. Curiously enough, when the former Bill was going through another place in 1916, Sir Richard Winfrey, now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, was apparently strongly opposed to its being called an experiment, and I very much sympathise with him, because, as he very truly remarked, we do not want any experiment in small holdings. He said—
"I should have thought that the Board of Agriculture must have known by this time that we have got much beyond the experimental stage
564
as far as small holdings are concerned. We want a colony like this in every county constituency in England, and not three miserable colonies. Here are some figures given me by one of the Small Holdings Commissioners the other day. We have now been working this Act for six years; this is our seventh year. In Norfolk we obtained over 15,850 acres."
Then he goes on to say that in East Anglia altogether they have from 30,000 to 40,000 acres of land. If the county councils have been so successful in this way, and Sir Richard Winfrey had such confidence in the county councils at that time, why is it that the noble Lord is, as I understand, going to oppose this Amendment giving powers to the county councils, if the Board of Agriculture so desire, to carry out the Small Holdings Act?
It is quite true, an Amendment has appeared on the Paper this morning in the name of the noble Lord, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, as a sort of compromise between my Amendment and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lichfield, but the noble Lord's Amendment has the same fault which I complained of on the Second Reading—that it is setting up another body. What does the noble Lord propose to do by his Amendment? He proposes that the Board of Agriculture may set up a body in manner prescribed by the regulations of the Board itself. It is true that in the particular area, or the county, in which it is set up the majority are to be members of the county council, but other people are to be put upon the bodies by the Board of Agriculture. My experience as a county councillor is that when you have these bodies, partly of county counçillors and partly of people co-opted by the county councils—in this case they will be co-opted, I understand, by the Board of Agriculture—you generally find that the majority attending those committees are not elected members. It is certain that if you want to give satisfaction to the people in the district who want small holdings and who are accustomed to dealing with the county councils through their small holdings committees, you will do it much better by having elected representatives to whom they can go. If you merely have co-opted people they are not in touch with the men requiring holdings, and anyhow the electors have no control over them, and it is entirely against a democratic system to constitute these bodies. It is true they may be a majority,

565
but in practice it is generally found they are a minority when the body sits, the county councillors having a good deal else to do. I shall be rather surprised if the noble Lord is able to convince the House that the county councils are not the right bodies to put up. I shall be further surprised if he does not accept my Amendment, because, speaking on this question on the Second Reading, he said—
"I agree most thoroughly that the work in the past has been managed exceedingly well by the county councils and the small holdings committees They have given a great deal of time to the purpose, and have been able to employ local men with practical knowledge of all local customs—an asset of enormous value in dealing with land in this way. They have been very successful, I think, in getting a good typo of tenant, and, on the whole, they have been able to carry out the Act of 1908 with far less friction than any of us at one time thought possible."
What could be a stronger recommendation for my Amendment than what the noble Lord said in that speech?
If you have such an admirable body which has worked so well in the past, why should the Board of Agriculture object to allowing that body to carry out, as far as they wish and as far as the county councils themselves wish, the duties under this Amending Bill? The only reason why I think the noble Lord is opposed to it, or at any rate the Board of Agriculture, is that they wish to set up a new body of officials who have to be paid, and thereby increase the expenses, instead of using a body which would work economically and which has its officials ready to carry out the work. At the present time, owing to the action of the Treasury, those officials have nothing to do because they are unable to buy land for small holdings; therefore this seems to be the right opportunity for making use of the county council officials. As I said before, it seems that the view of Sir Richard Winfrey, who was responsible for this Bill in the House of Commons, is that there should be a new departure entirely and a new Government Department set up. The noble Lord (Lord Clinton) did not contradict me on the occason of the Second Reading when I stated that Sir Richard Winfrey had said in the Observer—
" We shall develop these pioneer colonies, and we hope eventually to acquire 1,000,000 acres."
If you want to acquire 1,000,000 acres I shall be very glad. But why set up a new Government Department for the purpose; why not let the county councils do it? I
566
beg to move the Amendment standing m my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after the third ("acres") insert ("provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils as their agents and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them in addition to those vested in such councils by virtue; of the Small Holdings Act, 1908 ").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD CLINTON: Before I reply I would remind your Lordships that there are on the Paper two other Amendments dealing with the same question. The next Amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord Lichfield, and it might be a convenience to the House if he moved it now.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I have an Amendment to move which is not on the Paper.
LORD CLINTON: Cannot the noble Earl (Lord Lichfield) discuss his Amendment now?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The position is this: there are three Amendments dealing with the same point. If it is the wish of the House, and it is agreed on all hands, it would not be unusual to discuss the three Amendments as rival schemes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: And state what they are first?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Yes.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: The Amendment which I desire to move comes before that of the noble Earl, Lord Lichfield. Therefore I will state at once why I desire to move it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Is your Amendment on the same point?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: No.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Then you cannot discuss it now, but you will not have lost your right.
LORD CLINTON: Does the noble Earl (Lord Lichfield) wish to move his Amendment now?
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I do not propose to move my Amendment at the

567
moment, as I think it will be out of order; but after the noble Lord has spoken I shall speak both on my Amendment and on his proposal, if the House allows me.
LORD CLINTON: Very well. The Amendment moved by Lord Strachie, so far as it is to the purpose of bringing county councils into the management of small holding colonies, is one to which I am not at all unfavourable. But the noble Lord, in recommending it to your Lordships, has expressly refused, I think, to look upon this measure as anything but a small holdings scheme. It is true that it is very closely allied to small holding schemes, and to the Act of 1908 which the county councils administer; but there are, of course, differences in so far as these are experimental small holding colonies. Whether the experiment has gone far enough for us to have decided that colonies are either successful or are failures is open to doubt. The noble Lord thinks that they have gone far enough. I do not know whether he is satisfied that they have succeeded or failed; at all events the object of the measure is to deal with these small holdings which, so far as they are experimental, are different from the ordinary work of the county councils on their small holding schemes.
I am anxious to meet the Amendment of the noble Lord as far as it seems possible to do so, and I have put down a clause—which will come in, I think, as the second clause of the Bill—which represents the view of the Board upon the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, in remarking upon that clause, correctly stated that it is put down in answer to criticisms which were made upon the Bill during the Second Reading and also in fulfilment of the promise—or something approaching a promise—which I made on behalf of the Board that the assistance of the councils would be invited. But the noble Lord took that promise in a larger sense, I think, than was intended—namely, as being favourable to the entire management of these schemes being put into the hands of the councils. Now I cannot admit that, for reasons which I propose to give to your Lordships. In the first place, apart from the fact that these are experimental, it might reasonably be said that, as long as they remain experimental, they ought to be in the hands of one body which will carry out their experiments on the same lines rather than that they should be put into the hands of a large number of
568
different bodies who may have different ideas of how the experiment should be conducted, and whose conclusions, or results, might consequently be confusing. We want to see the experiment tried out on certain lines so that the country may be satisfied of the actual success or failure of the scheme.
But apart from this somewhat minor objection to the proposals, there are two objections which I think are very strong. The first is with regard to finance. This is money from national funds given for a particular purpose. The responsibility for the administration of these funds rests with the Board of Agriculture. I do not think that we can be rightly expected to hand over little portions of that money to different county councils under this measure; and also I doubt—in fact, I am certain—it is not a good principle that any body should be set up to administer a scheme involving considerable expenditure when that body has no responsibility for that expenditure. I think that the financial argument is probably a sound one, and that is my first reason against going to the full length which the noble Lord desires.
Then I think there is another reason. We are authorised to acquire a certain acreage in the country for the purpose of small holding colonies. There is no certainty that a portion of that will be acquired in each separate county. The probability is that it will not be so acquired. It is our duty to find where we can the most suitable places for the experiment, and it would be just a chance if we were able to find an ideally suitable place in each county in England, Scotland, and Wales; and if under those circumstances, land being found only in a few counties, the whole administration was placed in the hands of the county councils, is it not a certainty that those councils would give preference in their selection to the applications of men of their own county? It is so certain that this would be done that I do not think one need trouble to argue further in the matter.
What then would happen to applicants, presumably well-deserving, from counties which have not got that area within the boundaries of their own councils. I think they would probably fare very badly under the scheme, and as the scheme is for this national purpose it seems essential, that every one should have an equal chance to share in it. And what applies to the

569
counties which have not got a colony within their own boundaries applies, I think, with greater force to some of our great cities. In accepting applicants for land under this scheme preference is always to be given—it is one of the main purposes of the Bill—to those who have served in His Majesty's Forces during the present war. One may easily imagine, indeed I think it has been definitely stated, that there will be in our great cities a considerable number of soldiers or sailors who perhaps have been bred in the country and had some agricultural experience, but who for their own reasons have left the country and gone into the towns. After their strenuous experience of outdoor life in this war it is suggested that those are men who would very likely prefer to go back to their old pursuits in the country and get a piece of land. How would they be provided for if the whole of the land was put in the hands of the county councils? It seems to me that this is another objection to doing what the noble Lord asks.
What the Board propose is a clause which is taken from the Land Drainage Bill, to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading yesterday. It is not really the same clause, but it is adapted from it. It is a permissive clause. They may authorise any body constituted as the Board may prescribe to exercise on behalf of the Board any matter in relation to the purposes of this particular Bill, and that body shall consist as to a majority of county councillors. You there bring in the local elements which we all favour, which we are all anxious to get, and which we are all quite certain will help in the administration of the Bill. We thus get a majority of county councillors to assist in the work, and we have something less than a majority who will be sufficient, or I hope will be sufficient to represent the Board in their financial responsibility and also in seeing that a fair opportunity is given to applicants from other counties or from the cities to get some land under the scheme. I think this is as far as we ought to go in the matter, considering the two main points which I have raised—namely, finance, and the possibility of applicants for land coming from other counties.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: As your Lordships know, and as has already been stated, I have an Amendment coming later on which, although differently worded, is meant to bring about the same object as
570
the Amendment of Lord Strachie; and I may say at once that I do not care in the least which of those Amendments your Lordships accept, so long as you select the one which you consider the best worded and the most likely to meet the situation. The intention of both is the same—namely, to enable the Board of Agriculture to delegate these powers to the county councils.
When this Bill was before your Lordships for Second Reading if mentioned that the county councils were most anxious to do all they could to co-operate and help to make the Bill the greatest success possible for our ex-soldiers and sailors. I also stated that although the county councils had in no way given up their serious objection to the embargo that is now placed on loans for small holdings, and would do all they possibly could to press that upon the Treasury, yet in a small way they would be most anxious to help under the provisions of this Bill, and that with that object in view I was going to put down certain moderate Amendments to carry out those views of the county councils. I think your Lordship will agree that the Amendments are of a very moderate character, and that so far from being antagonistic to the objects of the Bill they are, on the contrary, likely to increase its efficiency.
I will deal now with the first Amendment that I have put down. It is in the same terms as that of Lord Strachie, and I would venture to point out that while my noble friend in charge of the Bill complains of my Amendment and that of Lord Strachie, because the Board of Agriculture cannot see their way to give up the entire management of these colonies to the county councils, there is no reason under my Amendment why they should do so. My Amendment says, to begin with, "The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may." That is entirely permissive; and it goes on to say that they may delegate "all or any of the power conferred upon the Board." Well, you have the option. For instance, my noble friend alluded to finance, and said that the Board being responsible for the finance could not see its way to hand it over to the county councils. My Amendment as it stands would, I think, provide for that difficulty. The Board would make certain arrangements with the county councils to protect themselves.

571
Again my noble friend alluded to the difficulty there might be as to the selection of candidates. That is to say, he suggested that the preference would undoubtedly be given to those ex-soldiers who happened to come from the particular county where the land was situate. There again, it seems to me perfectly competent, under the proposed words of the Amendment, for the Board to make arrangements with the county council on that point. The Board of Agriculture could take part in the nomination of these ex-soldiers and sailors and could make such arrangements as they thought fit with the county council on this subject. Therefore I do not think that these points, which the noble Lord urged against these Amendments, should really hold good. When you come to the counter proposals of the Board of Agriculture on this question I entirely agree with what has fallen from Lord Strachie, that the proposal contained in the Amendment is not at all a desirable one. Speaking from the county council point of view, I think there would be great objection to constituting a body in the county to deal with the small holdings when there is in existence in that county a special body of the county council conversant with the management of small holdings, and where the county councils and the officials are all equally familiar with such management. It would be, I think, quite impossible under the Amendment of my noble friend for the officials of the county council to be directly used by these Boards so appointed.
May I also say that I do not think the analogy with regard to the Drainage Bill is a very good one? It is perfectly true that the clause which was inserted in the Drainage Bill is a very satisfactory one to the county councils, but it must be remembered that the county councils are not the drainage authorities for their counties. They have no drainage staffs; they have no engineers, and so on. Therefore, in that case they were quite pleased that they were so far recognised that where the Board of Agriculture created these bodies for drainage boards there should be at least a majority of county councillors. In this particular case the county councils are the small holding authorities, and I venture to think it would not be a desirable thing to constitute boards such as are proposed under Lord Clinton's Amendment. On the contrary, I ask your Lordships, in consideration of these Amendments being of such a moderate character—I do not
572
care whether it is Lord Strachie's or my own—that you should rather adopt one or other of these two. By doing so you will give the county councils what they ask for. You will give them a position under this Bill.
I should like to call attention to this fact, that when the Bill was in the House of Commons no alterations were made in Committee, for some reason or another of which I am not aware; but on the Third Reading nearly every Member who spoke expressed the hope or the desire that county councils should be brought into the Bill. That was the whole trend of the discussion in the House of Commons. Therefore I am quite sure that any Amendments which your Lordships put into the Bill in the direction of giving the county councils a locus will be received by agreement and welcomed in the House of Commons. We must also remember that, as the Bill has passed the House of Commons, we must be very careful that we get our Amendments in now or it will be too late, and the omission cannot be remedied in the other House. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will agree to one or other of the two Amendments.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: As we seem to be discussing these various Amendments I should like to say that I prefer the Amendment of Lord. Lichfield to that of Lord Strachie. I do not like the idea mentioned in Lord Strachie's Amendment about the county councils being the agents of the Board of Agriculture. I prefer very much the words of Lord Lichfield's Amendment, that we should hand the work over to the county councils. As it is going to be, and is admitted to be, an experiment by the Board of Agriculture and the Government to carry out a scheme of colonies, I agree that the management ought to rest with them. What I feel very strongly is—and I quite agree with Lord Lichfield—that if they are going to take an estate in a county they ought not to do it without consultation first with the county council both as regards its advantages for small holdings or the absolute necessities of the case. I also hold strongly that the Amendment which I have down later on, but about which I will not speak now, should be adopted. I do not wish the county councils to be forced by the Board of Agriculture or the Government to take over a scheme which looks probably or possibly likely to turn out a failure, and that an odium which

573
they do not for a moment deserve should fall on them in consequence. On those grounds I support the Amendment of Lord Lichfield.
LORD BURNHAM: May I be allowed to point out to the House with great respect that the noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture has used arguments which I venture to think are entirely destructive to the proposals that he puts forward. He distrusts, and the Board which he represents also distrusts, the county councils unless reinforced by official nominees who may be appointed for reasons quite other than their knowledge of agriculture. The county councils are the greatest and the most dignified of our local authorities, but they are also the most democratic, are elected on the widest suffrage, and composed of those who have special knowledge as well as local responsibility which would enable them to deal most effectively with the purposes of this Bill.
I know it was alleged formerly that the county councils have shown themselves hostile in practice to the exercise of the powers for the acquisition of small holdings, but you cannot have a more powerful testimony in their favour than the figures and arguments used by Sir Richard Winfrey in 1916 in another place, because he was formerly a very severe critic of the county councils of the agricultural counties. He said—
"Here are some figures given me by one of the Small Holding Commissioners the other day. We have now been working this Act for six years—"
that is the Act which this Bill will amend—
"this is our seventh year. In Norfolk we obtained 15,850 acres under the Act, and we have put 1,382 tenants upon the land. In Cambridge-shire we have 10,000 acres and have put 1,438 tenants upon the land, and in Lincolnshire we have done about the same as in Norfolk. In the three Eastern counties of which I have some knowledge we have secured between 30,000 and 40,000 acres of land."
And then he ridiculed the Bill, as it was then before the House. I venture to say that the county councils would be far better off left to themselves than if they have political nominations made to them by the Board of Agriculture which will certainly not strengthen them from the expert point of view, but which may lead to friction in the working of the Act, as it will then be, which certainly none of your Lordships would wish to see introduced.
574
I do not believe a new body of this sort is necessary. Probably you have as many as you want in agricultural counties, looking at the time at the disposal of those to whom you wish to entrust the execution of these powers. It is a dangerous thing for the Board itself to have this responsibility thrown upon it. They will be besieged by applications to members of the other House for nomination to these bodies, and those who are exercising the powers will not be responsible to the people, as is the case with county councils. The noble Lord said they wanted to get this Bill executed everywhere in the same way. I venture to suggest that this is exactly what you do not want. You want to have the circumstances and conditions of every county dealt with according to the nature of the case, and I do not see why there should be this distrust of county councils acting not only fairly to the soldiers and sailors—a charge which could hardly be supported—but also in full sympathy with the purpose of the Bill.
My noble friend who has just sat down said that if this Bill failed it might bring unpopularity to the county councils. That is a rather unworthy argument to use. County councils would be the last to shirk responsibility in the matter, and besides they will have the odium just the same if they only have to direct the elective element of the new authority which the Government propose to set up. Those who are nominated are very possibly nominated for party and political considerations. These have to be taken into account; in practice it often works like that, as it does in the composition of a bench of magistrates. But it is not on these nominees that any unpopularity would fall but on the county councils, who are responsible to their constituents in the county areas. I do not believe that in the history of county councils there is any reason for questioning their zeal, and I am certain there is no reason for questioning their competence. If this Bill is to have a fair chance of success you cannot do better than entrust it to the greatest local authorities we have, which are always becoming more democratic because they are opening their doors wider to the labouring man. I hope that all those who are connected with county councils will take the course of supporting the Amendment, because I am quite certain the House of Commons will be unable to resist such an expression of opinion here.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope that the different speeches which have been made will tend to induce the noble Lord opposite somewhat to relax the extreme rigidity of attitude which he felt compelled to take up when he replied to the Amendment of my noble friend behind me. I was not unfortunately able to get here in time to hear the terms in which Lord Strachie moved his Amendment, and therefore I am unwilling to express any preference as between that Amendment and the kindred Amendment, very much in the same sense, which is on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Lichfield. But I think both noble Lords are justified in stating that the Amendment of each is couched in very moderate terms. They do not place compulsion on the Board of Agriculture, and they do not effect what is the purpose of my noble friend Lord Burnham—that is, to hand over the whole business to the county councils as they are. That, of course, is an arguable proposition. The county councils, certainly in a great many cases, have performed their duties under the Small Holdings Act with good sense and in many cases with enthusiasm. In the past, as we know, there were complaints that some councils were not showing all the activity which might be wished, but it is not proposed in either of these Amendments forcibly to hand over the entire management to them. A large discretion in the matter is left to the Board, no doubt on the ground which the noble Lord stated—namely, that the provision of money is central, and therefore it may be said to be reasonable that the central authority should have a large voice in its distribution. There is also the further point which the noble Lord made, that there may be a certain number of applicants for whom no county council would, on its own initiative, provide; although he somewhat himself minimised the force of that argument by stating that many of these men, townsmen, had at an earlier date come from some county or another. Those men would, I take it, have quite as good a chance of being now provided for in the county of their origin as if they had stayed there all the time.
LORD CLINTON: If their county had a area in which to put them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite agree that there may be some cases—the County of London is one—in which the
576
possibility of provision is not large, and there may be other counties in which the quota of land might not be easy to find. But, on the main point of the Amendment, I would ask the noble Lord to consider seriously whether he cannot meet my noble friends in the very moderate form of Amendment they have put forward.
LORD CLINTON: I should like to say just one word on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Lichfield, in supporting Lord Strachie's Amendments, rather suggested that they might be accepted because they were only permissive. It is quite true they are permissive, but it does not seem to me that I should be dealing quite fairly with the House if I accepted them as permissive knowing they were framed in such a way that the Board could not take advantage of that permission. That is to say, the power of control which they give to the county councils is, for reasons I have stated, larger than the Board think right; consequently you can scarcely imagine that the Board will in any case take advantage of the permission which is given. If they are drawn as I have suggested, then it is quite obvious, probably in every case, that the county council of the county will get an opportunity, which I think they desire, of being associated with the Board in carrying out these schemes. There is no distrust of the county councils, as Lord Burnham suggested. I hope I have said enough to-night, and on former occasions, to assure your Lordships that the Board are anxious for the assistance of county councils, and acknowledge the great importance of the work they have done. In regard to what the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said with reference to the extreme rigidity of my attitude, may I suggest that after all my Amendment goes a very long way to meet the idea that county councils should be associated in the management; and for reasons in connection with finance (which I consider to be of great importance) and in connection with the full opportunity for every one to get a chance of this land, I think that is as far as the Board ought to go.
LORD STRACHIE: I quite understand that the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture does not wish it to be thought that if he accepted this Amendment then the Board are obliged to give the county councils this power. I am sure that the House will quite understand, if he accepted it, that he did so

577
only with a perfectly free hand for himself, or rather for Sir Richard Winfrey, who is in charge of the Bill in another place, to make use of the county councils. For myself, and I think the noble Earl (Lord Lichfield) would say the same, we would he perfectly satisfied if we had it in the Bill, because we know well that the constitution of the Board may change. All we want is that, when the constitution of the Board changes at some future date, and when there may be a new President and a new Parliamentary representative here who will have sympathy with county councils and think they are the proper people to carry this out, there may be an opportunity for them to give the county councils that power. Once you have parted with this Bill no alteration can be made. Therefore I must persist in my Amendment. I personally think that my Amendment and that of Lord Lichfield are the same, and if the noble Earl will say that he will accept Lord Lichfield's Amendment I shall be satisfied, but apparently he is or opinion that neither is acceptable and therefore I must press my Amendment.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to add at the end of the first paragraph of the clause "Provided that in selecting the said additional area preference shall be given to land requiring reclamation, and which it would be commercially advantageous to reclaim."
The noble Lord said: Perhaps the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary may be inclined to accept this Amendment. Its
LORD CHARNWOOD: May I suggest that in the sixth line of the Amendment it might be well to add after the word "all," the words "or any of," so that the Board of Agriculture might delegate any of the powers to county councils. I do not know whether that is possible. Might it not also be improved if, after the words "acquisition, equipment, and settlement" the words "and management" were also added? It seems to me that, the intention is quite the same as that of Lord Lichfield's Amendment, but the wording is not quite the same.
LORD STRACHIE: I suggest that the noble Lord's words should be moved on Report. I would rather see the words printed.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-Contents 14.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Aberdare, L.

Lamington, L.

Marlborough, D.

Anslow, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Parmoor, L.

Crewe, M.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Roundway, L.

Cawley, L.

Saltoun, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Charnwood, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Northbrook, E.

Desborough, L.

Southwark, L.

Northbrook, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Forester, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Chaplin, V.

Hindlip, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Harcourt, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Armaghdale, L.

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

Clinton, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L.

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

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Elphinstone, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

object is to provide that preference should be given in this additional area to land which would be required and which it would be commercially advantageous to reclaim. I am strengthened in my hopes that your Lordships and the Government may be willing to accept this Amendment when I quote an authority on this question. Mr. Jesse Collings said in another place in 1916—
"We have immense areas of alluvial land on the banks of our rivers and estuaries which, by draining and embankment, could be brought into cultivation, and could produce enormous

579
crops. I have a typical instance in my mind which I know well. I have visited it on several occasions. It is outside Devonport Dockyard. There are about a thousand acres of such land, and with no heavy expenditure this could be made to produce good crops. If that were done, no less than 5,000 quarters of wheat could be produced on that area."
He further went on to say—and this is important, because I think that Sir A. Daniell Hall is at present Permanent Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture—that Sir A. D. Hall, who is the highest authority on land reclamation, in his presidential address before the British Association gave estimates to show that from £20 to £25 profit could be made on every acre of land. He concluded his suggestions by saving that such reclamation is a long-sighted policy and a sound commercial venture.
As Sir A. D. Hall is Permanent Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, I think I need not say much to recommend this to the noble Lord. Certainly I think he will agree that there could be no harm in putting this provision into the Bill. It is not obligatory upon the Board and if he thinks my words are too mandatory I shall be perfectly ready to amend them so that this Amendment, like my previous Amendment, may leave it to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture. Hardly anyone will dispute that it is a very desirable policy to do all we can to reclaim land, making it produce more food for the people of the country, especially corn, because at present we are always being urged that we ought to have more arable land, and not be dependent on supplies from abroad. If we can do anything under this Bill there seems to be no good reason why we should shut out any possible means of getting that greater produce. I hope that if the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment at once, he will take it into consideration.
Amendment moved,
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("Provided that in selecting the said additional area preference shall be given to land requiring reclamation, and which it would be commercially advantageous to reclaim ").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD CLINTON: The noble Lord, in pressing his Amendment, has said a good deal about the advantage of reclaiming land. I quite agree that in certain circumstances there are great advantages in reclamation, but I must remind the noble Lord that this is not a Bill for the purpose
580
of reclaiming land, but for creating small holding colonies. What is the position of a man who is accepted as a small holder in a colony, who is put down upon fifty or 100 acres on a bare hill side? Will he be able to live upon it while he is reclaiming it? Reclaiming wild land, as the noble Lord knows quite well, is a lengthy and expensive process, and it presupposes that the man who undertakes to do it is a man of some capital, upon which he can live until the labour which he has put into this reclamation bears fruit. Under the Bill the Board can, if they think fit, add some portion of unreclaimed land, in any proportion they choose, to a small holding, but I do not think it is right in a Bill for the purpose of a small holding colony experiment to put men down upon entirely unreclaimed land. The whole question of land reclamation is now under consideration by the Board, and I have no doubt that some proposals will be made for the purpose. But I suggest to the noble Lord that this Bill is not the right place in which to make them.
LORD STRACHIE: As the noble Lord opposes the Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved to omit the following proviso from Clause 1, "Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, have been acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised to be so acquired, the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of a rentcharge or other annual payment."
The noble Viscount said: This is a Bill in which I am greatly interested, and as a matter of fact I believe I was the first person to introduce a Small Holdings Bill into Parliament. That was, I am sorry to say, a good many years ago, but the object of that Bill was to endeavour to re-create what may be called the old peasantry which formerly existed in great numbers in this country. They not only

581
existed but flourished, and they carried on their calling with the greatest possible success until they gradually died out with the advent of free trade and the terrible period of depression which followed upon that after a certain number of years, and which everybody still remembers. But the principle of that Bill was to establish, if possible, the ownership of land, and, so far as I am able to follow the present Bill, if this clause remains, with the proviso which I want to exclude, it will not only militate against the acquisition of land but it will place people with mortgaged estates in a difficult position. Vast numbers of the estates in this country are mortgaged more or less, and everybody knows that mortgages are being constantly called in in order that the morgagees may get 6 per cent. for their money. I understand that there is no compulsion in this Bill.
LORD CLINTON: No.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think it must be obvious, however, that, in the case of a mortgage which is called in, the owner of the estate in all probability, though he might be very willing to sell, and though he might wish to encourage the object of this Bill, may not be in a position to pay off the mortgage—that depends, of course, on the price which you give him—and he may hesitate for a long time perhaps before he tries to meet the wishes of the Government and the object of this Bill.
I may be told that the Bill which I refer to failed entirely in its object. That was not the case. What happened was this. The Government which introduced that measure and carried it very shortly afterwards went out of office. It was immediately followed by another Bill, introduced by a Liberal Government, who substituted tenancies under local bodies for the principle of ownership which we desired to see established. But before that was done, although there were very few months in which to do it, a certain number of colonies were established, and there they are, and on the authority of Mr. Jesse Collings, who will be taken by this House, I am certain, as a reliable authority—you will find it stated in the book which he wrote on this question—those colonies have flourished from the day when they were created under that Bill up to the present time. I admit that they are few in number; there was no time for the creation of more in the short period that
582
the Government remained in office after the passing of that, Bill into law. But judging from what occurred in another case it is absolutely impossible to say that the principle failed; on the contrary, wherever it had an opportunity of being tried it has been a thorough and a complete success.
This Bill is introduced very largely in the interests, when they come home, of the soldiers and sailors who are now fighting our battles abroad. But which do you think they would prefer to be—the owners of their land once and for all time, or the tenants of certain local bodies? I am certain that there will be no question upon their part of which they would rather be; and I think that is the view which must commend itself to everybody. Then, again, supposing that the proposals in this Bill are carried out as they now stand. After all, this is a Bill which must be very largely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture, and, although I infinitely prefer ownership to any tenancy under any kind of body whatever, if I were in the position of wanting a small holding I should certainly choose to serve under a county council rather than under the present Board of Agriculture, or any other Board of Agriculture which is likely to be constituted in the future. I have now advanced arguments which, I think, strongly support the proposal I have made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Omit the proviso in Clouse 1, from the words ("Provided that") down to ("annual payment").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
LORD CLINTON: The noble Viscount understands, of course, that I have not had an opportunity of considering this matter, as the Amendment was not put on the Paper, but the effect of it is, I think, to take out the words relating to leasing or a rent charge, which would take us back to the principal Bill where purchase by the Board was allowed. It is, I believe, for the moment a definitely settled matter by the Treasury that purchase will not be allowed; consequently they have given the additional power to the Board of providing for a certain sort of purchase—namely, a purchase by way of rent charge or other annual payment. That does not preclude—in fact, I think it suggests—the possibility of purchasing by a payment over the longest possible

583
term, possibly 999 years; and this view is probably strengthened by an Amendment which will be moved later stating it may be obtained by feu, which is for a period of 999 years.
LORD LAMINGTON: No; perpetuity.
LORD CLINTON: They then become the virtual owners; and there is no reason under this measure—whatever may be the policy which has been adopted by a recent Government who were against the principle of purchase by the small holder—why they should not sell the land to a small holder for this long period of lease, making him a virtual owner. But I think, for the reason I have stated—that by no possibility can purchase direct by the Board be inserted in the measure—I ought not to consent to accept the Amendment of my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: There are two entirely separate questions involved in this Amendment. The first is the question as to whether the occupier of the small holding should be a tenant or a purchaser. That is a point on which I am probably not in complete agreement with my noble friend behind me (Lord Chaplin); and the answer of the noble Lord (Lord Clinton) to my noble friend's complaint is that although the tenant cannot be a purchaser yet he can feu the land for a term of just under 1,000 years. That may meet the case of the tenant and place him very much in the position in which my noble friend would like to see him. But Lord Clinton has not met the other point which my noble friend made with regard to the acquisition of the land. I quite understand, as he says, that the Treasury is not prepared to pay cash for any of the new land to be acquired under this Bill, although I take it from the form of the Clause it may pay cash up to the extent which the first Act allows.
LORD CLINTON: I think that is all exhausted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes; therefore the Treasury is not willing to find money in order to pay cash for further acquisitions. The noble Lord opposite did not answer the argument, which appears to me to be a very strong one, put forward
584
by my noble friend Lord Chaplin, that in a number of cases this may render it impossible for an agreement to be arrived at between the landowner and the Board for the purchase of particular farms. Where an encumbrance exists on those farms—if a mortgage, as my noble friend said, had been called in—the payment of a rent charge by the State to the landowner will not enable him, or in a great many cases may not enable him, to pay off that charge. That, I take it, is not disputed by my noble friend opposite, and he merely states, in reply, that as the Treasury will not provide the money there is no means of making them do so; but, of course, it does not meet the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Chaplin.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I should like to say a word with regard to the Treasury. I do not know, of course, what are the reasons which have induced the Treasury to refuse this request, when they must have consented recently to other requests according to all the statements we read. In the interests of the miners and the part of the Labour Party interested in that particular industry, requests have been met within the last few days which, so we are told, will add to the burdens of the country to the extent of £24,000,000 a year. It is only a second edition of the process which has been already invoked, I understand, once before, and if that can be done in the one case I do not understand why there is to be such an extraordinary distinction made between two industries, one of which is rightly assisted with enormous sums, and the other the progress of which, we are told, is second only in importance at the present time to the provision of men for the fighting line. I really think we ought to have some reason for this blunt and definite refusal of the Treasury to listen to demands of this kind, when other demands have been readily granted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved the addition at the end of the clause of the words "or by taking the same in feu." The noble Lord said: The object of this small Amendment is to make it clear that in Scotland land can be taken in feu for the purposes of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end insert (" or by taking the same in feu").—(Lord Stanmore.)
LORD SALTOUN: I do not like this Amendment at all. It seems to me that the whole of this Bill is tentative and experimental. The only thing which is not experimental is the taking of land. It is taken up in perpetuity. Supposing I wish to give a piece of land in the middle of my property and this scheme turns out to be a failure. What am I to do? The land belongs to the Government, who have acquired it, and it is put up for sale. I may make a bid for it, but I may not get it. It may be bought by some one over my head, and there I have a planter in the middle of my property and the planter settles down with absolutely no right to be there. Surely as the Bill is experimental it is only fair that the period for which land is acquired shall be fixed. If the scheme proves a success then the acquisition of the land can be made compulsory, but for the present at all events it should be acquired only for a term of years.
LORD CLINTON: I should be prepared to accept this Amendment, which I understand is required by the Secretary of the Scottish Office. With regard to the remarks of my noble friend behind me, the answer to him, of course, is that this is a purely voluntary Bill, and it is quite unnecessary for him to feu his land or let it if he does not wish to do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD THE EARL OF LICHFIELD moved the addition of the following proviso, "Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired shall be so acquired except after consultation with the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is put down on behalf of the County Councils Association, and they are very anxious that it should be passed. I have already alluded to the other Amendments standing in my name, and we have passed one of a similar nature standing in the name of Lord Strachie. It is a very moderate proposal, and it seems to be most essential, in order to avoid possible danger of overlapping or of competition with regard to the acquisition of these lands, that the councils of the counties in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate should be consulted in the first instance. They would be in a good position to advise as to the suitability of the land, and as to its being of the desired
586
quality for these small holdings. I think there is very little more to be said. Your Lordships can see for yourselves what the Amendment proposes, and I hope you will give it your support. You will see that it is not permissive. It says that in every case the Board shall consult the county councils.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, at end insert (" Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired shall be so acquired except after consultation with the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
LORD CLINTON: If the noble Earl lays much stress upon this Amendment, I do not see any great objection to it provided it is amended in one or two particulars. As I understand, the only object in bringing it forward is to make certain that there shall not be any competition between the Board and the county councils in purchasing land for this purpose; at all events, that the Board, coining to a county where it does not know local circumstances, shall not purchase land which might be required by the county council. So far there seems to be no reason why the Board should not consult with the councils upon the matter, but the first point I should like to raise is this. County councils only sit as a rule four times a year. Obviously the Board could not wait through a whole quarter for the purpose of consulting the council upon a purchase of land which might have to be settled to-morrow. Therefore it is necessary to make some alteration, so that a committee of the county council could be consulted where urgency required it. I have also one other objection, and that is that sales and purchases are frequently of a very private nature indeed until actually completed, and it might be in certain circumstances impossible to consult anybody in the county under the terms of the proposed agreement between the Board and the vendor. I should have to find words—I think they could be found—which would guard against that. Subject to these remarks, if the noble Earl wishes to place the Amendment in the Bill I shall raise no objection.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: May I say there was no intention in the working of this Amendment that the whole of the council of the county should be consulted, but that information should be tendered to

587
the official clerk or the chairman of the small holding committee with regard to the proposed acquisition of land? That would, no doubt, do away with the objection which my noble friend finds to the publicity attending a consultation with the full council. I never intended that. Therefore, if your Lordships should see well to pass the Amendment, words could be inserted on Report which would put the matter on a footing such as the Board of Agriculture may desire.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to insert a new clause. The noble Viscount said: My object is to safeguard the county councils from suddenly being told that they are to form a small holding colony against their wish, when, perhaps, they know better than those who are members of the Board of Agriculture the value and particular qualities of the land. I wish also to see that they are not compelled to take over a colony formed by the Board of Agriculture. I trust that my noble friend will not think there is anything unreasonable in that view. It leaves the responsibility for forming the colony with the Board of Agriculture as now, and it protects the county councils from being forced against their wish to undertake colonies. I hope the noble Lord will accept the proposal.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a now clause:
"Consent of county council required to form small holding colony.
". A county council shall not be required to form a small holding colony under this Act, or to take over a colony already formed by the Board of Agriculture, without its consent."—(Viscount Galway.)
LORD CLINTON: I do not agree with the noble Viscount that this Amendment is in any sense necessary. I cannot see what possible power is conferred upon the Board to instruct a county council either to form a small holding colony or to take one over. That responsibility rests entirely with the Board, and I do not think there is any means of transferring it to the county councils.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: If the noble Lord assures me that there is no power in the Bill to force it on county councils, I will withdraw.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: May I point out that in Lord Strachie's Amendment which has been already passed it is stated that "the Board may with the consent of the county councils." Does not that meet the noble Viscount's view?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: As a consequence of what took place the other day I have put a new clause down, because I am most anxious that everything should be done to put soldiers and sailors on the land. At the same time, after what has been written in the papers—with what authority I do not know—there seems to be an idea that the ratepayer's money may be used for experimental farming and other purposes. I do not think this is the intention of the measure, and it is to ensure that land acquired under it shall be used for the proper purposes that I put the Amendment down. I am sure we are anxious that the soldiers and sailors should make a success of their colonies, and that nobody else should be put on them. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
" Use of land.
". Land acquired under this Act shall not be used for demonstration or experimental farms, but shall be used for the occupation, and possible ownership, of sailors or soldiers with knowledge of agriculture."—(Viscount Galway.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before my noble friend answers, may I say I did not happen to be in the House when the Bill was under discussion on Second Reading, and my noble friend Lord Galway afterwards drew my attention to what he had said about the Report of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee? What he said was based on something that was stated in The Times, I think, in respect of part of that Report. I only wish to assure him that, although experimental and demonstration farms are discussed in that Report, they are discussed without any kind of connection with the settlement of soldiers and sailors on the land. There was absolutely no connection between the two ideas.
LORD CLINTON: Under this measure there is no intention of providing demonstration or experimental farms in the ordinary acceptance of the term. It is

589
quite possible that in any colony formed it may be advisable to take some portion of it and use it to show the colonists how the land should be worked. I can quite imagine that in some of our fruit farm colonies or market gardening colonies it would be well if the director took 10 or 15 acres or whatever it may be, and worked them as he believed would show the best methods for working the land profitably; but in the ordinary sense of a demonstration farm I do not think anything was intended. Of course, if the noble Viscount is alluding to the farm at Patrington, which he has been already discussing, no doubt this has been for the time occupied as a large farm. It is occupied as a large farm because for the moment there are no settlers for it, and I do not presume that the noble Viscount, or any one else, would desire us to leave the farm derelict, because apparently the moment has not arrived for it to be turned into its proper function as a small holding colony. I do not think the proposed clause is necessary, because there is nothing in the measure which suggests that the farms could be used as demonstration farms.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: With that assurance of the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I was going to ask my noble friend opposite whether he would object to leave out the words "and possible" in the third line of his Amendment and to insert the word "or," so that it would read "shall be used for the occupation or ownership of sailors or soldiers with knowledge of agriculture."
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
To leave out the words (" and possible ") and insert the word (" or ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I am quite willing to accept that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think it a little unfortunate to introduce the whole question of ownership by means of a very oblique reference in an Amendment which my noble friend behind me (Viscount Galway) desires to withdraw.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: He has just offered to accept it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend is prepared to withdraw his proposed new clause, and has expressed his desire to do so.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I did not bear that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I would therefore suggest that as the proposed clause in itself is open to objection—which, I think, Lord Galway is prepared to admit—if it is necessary to raise the question of ownership it should be done in a much more regular way rather than in a perfectly vague and incidental manner. I hope, therefore, it will not be pressed.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I hear so badly that I was not aware that Lord Galway was going to withdraw his Amendment. Otherwise, of course, I should not have moved an Amendment to one that was to be withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment, but it is open to the noble Viscount to raise the question again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: The new clause the insertion of which I now move is only carrying out what has been done before namely, that we should have a regular balance sheet, a profit and loss account, so that we should know how these small holding colonies go on. I should like to make a slight alteration of the words so that the clause would read, "A regular profit and loss account for the farming year, either from Lady Day to Lady Day or Michaelmas to Michaelmas, according to the date of the tenancy, for each small holding colony, shall be annually presented to both Houses of Parliament." The great difficulty has been that at the end of the farming year every farmer makes up his accounts. It should be some day corresponding to the agricultural custom. No date was put in before, and the result is that we have confusion. Therefore I move that the accounts should be made up to the date of the tenancy, whether Lady Day or Michaelmas.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
". A regular profit and loss account for the farming year, either from Lady Day to Lady Day

591
or Michaelmas to Michaelmas, according to the date of the tenancy, for each small holding colony, shall be annually presented to both Houses of Parliament."—(Viscount Galway.)
LORD CLINTON: I do not think the main portion of the new clause moved by the noble Viscount is necessary, because in the principle Act, Section 10, it is stated—
" The Board shall present to Parliament an annual report of their proceedings under this Act which shall include a statement of the financial position of each colony."
I think, probably, this meets the point of view of the noble Viscount. He raised another point which we have already discussed this afternoon, the proper date for closing the account. He says it should be Lady Day because that is a custom of the particular district. I say it should be Michaelmas because that certainly is the most convenient time for closing the account of a grain-growing farm. However, if he thinks that the custom of the country is of sufficient importance to press his alteration on our attention, I will look into the matter and see if in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture it is thought advisable to have Lady Day instead of Michaelmas. The question of an outgoing tenant, as far as the Board is concerned, is of small importance.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Remaining clause agreed to.

SOFT FRUIT PRICES.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the unsatisfactory prices fixed by the Ministry of Food for certain soft fruits—

1. To ask that in any future fixing of prices for the plum and apple crop an adequate remuneration shall be allowed to the producer, having regard to the high cost of production and collection and the unprecedented shortness of the crops.

2. What price has been paid by the Government for Dutch black currants delivered in England.

3. What price has been paid for the orange crop in Spain delivered in England; and at what price have these oranges been resold to licensed jam makers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have to criticise the Department over which the late Lord Rhondda presided so ably. I should like to be allowed to associate myself with the words which fell from the noble Earl the Leader of the House and from the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, at the beginning of business this afternoon. Under ordinary conditions I would postpone my Question, but owing to circumstances over which I have no control I cannot do so, and I understand it is the wish of the Ministry of Food that a statement should be made this afternoon.
The story I have to try to unfold to you is not a new one, and I am afraid I shall have to trouble your Lordships with a good deal of detail. It is again, in my opinion, a story of how the Ministry of Food has gone on the evil path of ignoring the interests of the producer and taking no notice of his side of the case. The prices complained of, fixed for small fruits, are for raspberries, strawberries, and black currants. The prices fixed by the Ministry of Food for red currants and gooseberries have not, I believe, given the same dissatisfaction. Let me try and describe what has happened. When the Fruit Prices Fixing Committee met the Food Production Department's representatives, who are supposed to look after the interests of the producer, they made up their minds to ask the Ministry of Food to fix certain prices. In all cases the growers produced estimates of the crops in various parts of the country, and their cost of production. In each case the representative of the Food Production Department agreed with the estimates of the growers, both as to the probable volume of crop and the cost of production in the various localities.
Not only did the Food Production Department agree with the estimates, but the Ministry of Food sent down their own chartered accountant to Wisbech, to go into the cost of production with the Wisbech growers. I understand that the chartered accountant was perfectly satisfied with the estimate of the cost of production by the growers in Wisbech, and could not pick a single hole in it. You would have thought the Ministry of Food would have been content to take the estimate that had been presented to them. Not a bit of it. What did the Ministry of Food then propose to do? They entered, as far as I can make out, into an unholy alliance with the jam makers, and they said, "We will

593
appoint an independent person to make our own estimate."
To make perfectly certain that the dice was loaded against the food producers, whom do you think they appointed to draw up the estimate for them? They appointed a gentleman who, in ordinary years, is a buyer for jam-makers. I very much doubt whether he has ever grown any fruit. His profession is that of a buyer of fruit for certain jam-makers. I think your Lordships will agree that this is hardly a fair way of getting an estimate of the crop. This gentleman estimated the crops, certainly in the Wisbech part of the country, as well over the average, and the Ministry of Food was apparently satisfied with his statements, and based the price which they fixed for the fruit on the estimates given them by this representative of a firm of jam-makers.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does the noble Lord say that the fruit prices have been based upon an estimate of well over the average crop?
LORD HINDLIP: I understand that is the case. The Food Controller has always made a case out for putting the price of produce down in order that he may benefit the consumer. I have a case, given me the other day, of the profits of a certain jam-maker in which I do not see quite how the consumer benefited, because last year the jam-maker succeeded in making a net profit of over 90 per cent. I fail to see why the favoured jam-makers should have all the sugar and all the fruit, and have so great a pull over the producer.
Unless the Ministry of Food shows some inclination to treat the producer a little more fairly in the matter of fruit, I think we shall have later on to consider whether the profits of the licensed jam-maker will not have to be investigated. There is no doubt that we shall be told by the Minstry of Food that these prices were fixed, as we were told in the case of the meat prices, in agreement with the Board of Agriculture. When the fruit-growers' representatives on the Fixing Prices Committee met the representatives of the Food Production Department they were asked the prices that they wanted for jams, and they based the prices that they asked on the assumption that the whole crop would be an average one, and would not be commandeered. Your Lordships may remember that last
594
year there was a fixed price for fruit going to jam-makers, and fruit that did not go to the jam-makers was sold on the open market, and was subject to the ordinary laws governing supply and demand. They also assumed that they would be allowed to sell in the open market two or three days a week. As far as raspberries are concerned, they asked £50 a ton, or 5d. per lb., based on the estimated cost of production of £49 an acre and a yield of 23 cwt. an acre. For strawberries they asked the same price, with an estimated yield of 25 cwt. an acre, and for black currants £65 with an estimated yield of half a ton per acre.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Whose figures are these?
LORD HINDLIP: These are figures supplied to me by the growers.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: They are not the official figures of the Board of Agriculture.
LORD HINDLIP: No, these are the prices that the fruit-growers' representatives asked when they met the repesentatives of the Food Production Department, and I understand that the Food Production Department did not disagree with those figures, and asked the growers to allow them to negotiate with the Ministry of Food on the basis of those figures. The Food Production Department's representatives apparently went to the Ministry of Food, and tried to get these prices, or as near to them as they could. The next thing the growers heard was that the Ministry of Food had turned round and commandeered the whole of the crop—not a portion of it, but the whole—and that they had fixed the price of raspberries at £37 a ton, 4d. a lb., or only £2 per ton higher than the jam prices for last year when only part of the crop was commandeered. The figures that have been given to me show that the cost of picking raspberries and strawberries last year, when it was a fair crop, was £9 a ton, and the cost of picking this year, when it is a bad crop, is £18 a ton. The strawberries were fixed at the price of £40 on the stalk, and £44 off the stalk. I believe this is the first case in the history of the fruit trade in which the price of strawberries has been higher than that of raspberries owing to the greater cost of picking.

595
The concession to the consumer or retailer—Mr. Clynes the other day made a eulogy upon it—comes to this, "Well, you may sell fruit in the open markets (only strawberries, not raspberries or black currants) on a Saturday, but you may not charge more than the jam price. You may sell your strawberries at 4½d. per lb. but the retailer may sell them to the public at 9d." He gets 90 per cent. out of it. Raspberries and black currants can be sold, I find, this year by people who have less than half an acre of fruit, but that does not affect the fruit-growers very much. I am told that owing to the very dry weather the raspberry crop is not more than half a ton to the acre, straw berries only three-quarters of a ton, and black currants a quarter of a ton. After the figures which I have endeavoured to give to your Lordships it will not be difficult to realise how very serious the loss is to the growers owing to the fixing of the prices so low. This is very unfortunate for fruit growers in various parts of the country, a large proportion of whom are small men having two or three acres of land. It is very dis-heartening to them.
Let me, if I may, very shortly give your Lordships a few instances of the prices that people were quite willing to pay, and did pay, in the open market before prices were fixed. A commission agent in Birmingham was bid by a shopkeeper £280 a ton for black currants. Certain growers in the South West of England, where the fruit was early and where they were able to get it to the market before the prices were fixed, sold their strawberries at the rate of £175 and even £600 a ton, and the first strawberries that were sold in Birmingham market this year made 8s. 3d. per lb. which is at the rate of £900 a ton. I do not think that any grower has ever asked or dreamt of asking for such prices to be fixed, but surely there was some figure considerably below those prices yet higher than the prices which have been fixed by the Ministry of Food which could have been adopted, and which would have given fruit-growers a moderate return for their money without making it inevitable that they should be faced with a very heavy loss. I hope that we shall not be told that these prices were fixed in agreement with the Board of Agriculture, because it sounds an almost impossible thing to believe.
As regards the Questions that I have on the Paper asking for the price of black
596
currants coming from Holland, and of oranges coming from Spain, my reason for asking that these prices should be given is that there is a considerable feeling that the Government are subsidising the favoured jam-makers at the expense of the English fruit-grower, and are providing the jam-makers with fruit which they get out of the country instead of letting the English growers have a fair price. The price paid for black currants in Holland may not be very high, but unless I am much mistaken the cost of picking on the Continent is considerably lower than the cost of picking now in this country.
I have done with the small fruits and the past, and I come to the part of my Question where I ask that sufficient and due consideration should be paid to the interests of the growers in the future. There are no prices fixed at the moment for the plum and the apple crop, but I understand that they are to be fixed, possibly this week. The Evesham and Pershore districts in Worcestershire are about the only part of England where there are any plums, and the only plums which are to be found in the orchards there this year are what are known as Pershore or yellow plums. They have a very small crop of these, and the coloured plum—the more expensive plum—literally does not exist in England this year. The prices as far as growers are concerned are very moderate. They were told not long ago by a big commission buyer that for yellow plums they could get in the market between 25 s. and 30 s. a pot of 72 lbs. They are only asking to be allowed to charge £1 per pot, which works out at about 3½d. per lb. and I do not think even the Ministry of Food would consider that a very excessive price for this year. This is the worst year for fruit since 1903. It would be quite impossible to fix a price for the plum crop of Worcestershire which would prevent these people from losing money, the crop is so bad. And may I ask that, as the crop of the coloured plum, the superior class of plum, is practically non-existent, the Ministry of Food might, as an act of grace, let it alone and not fix prices for that at all.
There is only one other question as regards the fruit crop, and that refers to the damson and damascene crop. It is a small crop in England, and I understand that in Ireland there is a very good crop. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will not differentiate, as they often do,

597
between the interests of the people of this country and the interests of the people in Ireland, and I hope that the price for the damson and damascene crop in this country will not be lower than the price fixed for that crop in Ireland.
As the result of the treatment meted out to the growers of small fruits I heard yesterday that in all parts of the country where these small fruits are grown—in Worcestershire, Cambridgeshire, Kent, Middlesex—a great many really representative growers are so disgusted with the treatment they have received by the Ministry of Food that they are already beginning to plough up their strawberry plants and raspberry canes and cut down their currant bushes, and they are trying to plant some kind of vegetable crops, which the Ministry of Food has not yet and probably will not commandeer. The producer is so continually harassed by the fixing of prices far too low that a considerable amount of damage is done, and much harm is to be apprehended another year. I sincerely hope that we shall get some satisfactory answer from the Government, and that the interests of the producer will be better looked after in the future than they have been in the past.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, my noble friend has made a speech covering a good deal of ground, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a somewhat general statement upon this subject which, I think, may be a convenience to those interested in the fruit crop. I may preface my reply by a short statement of the policy adopted by the Ministry of Food in relation to soft fruit and jam, and the causes which have led to the adoption of that policy.
The fruit crop this season is one of the worst that has ever been experienced, and, after full allowance has been made for the importation of such foreign fruit as can be secured, it appears that the total quantity of fruit available will not admit of more than half the quantity of jam being manufactured that was made last year. Navy and Army demands, which absorbed nearly half of last year's jam output, are as heavy as usual, and when they have been met there will remain less than 1 oz. of jam per head per week for the civilian population, as against an average allowance of 4 oz. per head per week during the season 1917–18. That has a large bearing upon every-
598
thing that my noble friend has said. These calculations are based on the assumption that the whole of the crop grown for commercial purposes be converted into jam, and that no fresh fruit is made available for direct consumption by the public. My noble friend spoke of strawberries being sold at £600 a ton.
LORD HINDLIP: At the rate of £600 a ton. It was early in the season.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And it was stopped. I am very glad it was stopped. Those strawberries, commanding that price, were going to people who did not require them nearly so much as some poor persons who want jam. I think that £600 is a truly indefensible price.
LORD HINDLIP: I was not defending the price.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, of course not. But the prices were stopped. I am defending the prices being stopped, and I think on the necessity that I can show for jam there is a very strong case for the fixing of prices. The fact is that there can be no question that jam is of far greater importance to the population as a whole than fresh fruit, and the Consumers' Council are fully in agreement with medical and scientific opinion in endorsing the view that under existing conditions the fruit crops of 1918 must be reserved for jam.
The adoption of this policy involved the fixing of fruit prices for the current season on the basis that the whole of the fruit would be taken for jam, instead of, as is ordinarily the case, only that portion of the crop which does not fetch good prices as table fruit. The average price paid for fruit by the jam manufacturer during previous years was therefore ignored. It was decided that maximum prices should be fixed on the basis of estimated yield and cost of production. Detailed costs submitted by growers from all parts of the country to the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food separately showed that the average cost of production per acre of strawberries this season has worked out at £32 7s. 9d., and that of bush fruit, including raspberries, at £30 2s. 9d. These figures are exclusive of cost of picking and of profit.
LORD HINDLIP: Is that all over the country?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes; it is only an average figure; and these figures exclude the cost of picking, and the profit. The average yield per acre, to which Lord Hindlip referred, of the soft fruits was estimated by the Board of Agriculture to be as follows:—

Strawberries

1 ton 3 cwt. per acre.

Black Currants

1 ton 15 cwt. per acre.

Raspberries

1 ton 10 cwt. per acre.

Red Currants

1 ton 10 cwt. per acre.

Gooseberries

Slightly over 1 ton 10 cwt. per acre.

The maximum prices fixed by the Gooseberries (Sales) Order and the Soft Fruits (Sales) Order are as follows:—

Per Ton.

Strawberries (Sterling Castle and Scarlet)

£44

Strawberries of other varieties

£40

Black Currants

£60

Raspberries

£37

Red Currants

£32

Gooseberries

£27

When the cost of picking has been allowed for, the grower whose crop is up to this season's average will derive from these prices a clear profit of nearly £10 per acre.
The law of averages necessarily involves some inequality of treatment and there will be growers who derive considerably less profit than the average, just as there will be growers who will obtain considerably more, but the margin allowed is so liberal in the circumstances that it is hardly possible to credit the statements which have been made to the effect that many growers would rather leave their fruit to rot than pick it for the jam manufacturers at the prices offered. I gathered from Lord Hindlip that raspberry canes, actually before the crop is mature, are being destroyed with a view to planting other crops.
LORD HINDLIP: I certainly gathered that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is, of course, a criminal offence; and if my noble friend will give me the particulars I can answer for it that steps will be taken to prevent that; and, what is more, I think I can guarantee that the fruit now in danger of being destroyed shall be gathered. So far the Ministry of Food have been unable to secure the names and addresses of any growers who are de-
600
liberately withholding their fruits in this way, and they will be prepared to take immediate action in such cases on receipt of the necessary information.
Some feeling has been aroused among growers in other districts of England and Wales and in Scotland by the fact that growers of the earliest crops of strawberries, particularly in the Southampton district, were permitted to sell their fruit without restriction as to price or destination before the Soft Fruit (Sales) Order came into operation. The delay in issuing this Order was due solely to the difficulty experienced, during a spell of unusually dry, hot weather, in arriving at an accurate estimate of the average yield of the crops. It will be some consolation to the growers of later strawberries to know that, if prices had been fixed a week earlier, they would undoubtedly have been considerably lower than those now in operation; because the later estimates of yields obtained showed decidedly worse results than the original estimate, owing to weather conditions.
The arrangements made for securing the commercially grown soft fruit for the jam factories are working well, and generally speaking the factories are being kept well supplied. Some difficulty was found in handling Saturday consignments of strawberries, and special arrangements were therefore made to release Saturday strawberries for public consumption. The collection of fruit from small growers and owners of private gardens is in the hands of the Food Production Department of the Board of Agriculture, which has set up county organisations, working in co-operation with the existing Horticultural Sub-Committees, to undertake the collection, transport, and marketing of such produce. The Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply have also made special issues of sugar to the Divisional Food Commissioners of the Ministry of Food in order to enable them to issue additional quantities of sugar at their discretion to private fruit-growers who have no means of sending their fruit to the jam factories, and who, under the general scheme of distribution of sugar for jam, have not received sufficient sugar to enable them to preserve their own fruit crops. These measure will, it is hoped, enable waste of fruit to be prevented, although much must still depend on the energy and good will of the growers themselves.

601
I will now deal with the specific Questions which my noble friend has placed on the Paper. With regard to fixing the prices for the plum and apple crop, the Food Controller has no intention of fixing these prices on any other basis than that adopted in the case of the soft fruit crops. The principle adopted in the case of these crops was identical with that suggested by the noble Lord—namely, to ascertain the average cost of production and collection this season, the average yield per acre, and to make an adequate allowance for profits after taking these facts into account. I pass to the second Question. I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension in thinking that some favouritism was shown in favour of the Dutch. That is not the case. The Food Controller has purchased no Dutch black currants for delivery to this country.
In reply to the third Question, there, again, we have to buy abroad because we cannot grow the oranges ourselves. The bitter oranges required from Spain for the manufacture of marmalade for the Navy and Army and the civilian population last season were purchased by representatives of the jam manufacturers nominated by, and acting under, the instructions of the Ministry of Food. The oranges were issued as obtained to the manufacturers at a provisional price of 45 s. per cwt. of sound fruit delivered free on rail at the port of arrival, on the understanding that the price would be subject to adjustment when the actual cost of delivery for the whole season had been ascertained. Owing to the high cost of freight and other causes the ultimate price will work out somewhat in excess of the figure quoted, and the jam manufacturers to whom the oranges purchased under this arrangement were allocated by the Ministry of Food will be required to pay their share of the additional cost. It is not anticipated that any charges in respect of these transactions will fall upon the Ministry of Food. I may add that the gentlemen who have assisted the Ministry by undertaking the purchase and delivery of these consignments have performed the whole of their work without remuneration, so that the charges borne by the manufacturers consist only of the actual cost of the oranges, with the necessary expenses for the freight and handling.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, the noble Earl, the Lord Privy Seal, in referring to
602
the question of raspberries, said that £30 was considered the cost of production, not counting the picking; but in making that statement he left out a very important item. I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware of what the cost of picking is at the moment owing to the present price of labour. I am informed that the cost of picking is £18; so that you have to add that amount to the figure of £30, making a total of £48, which is very near the estimate given by my noble friend just now which the Lord Privy Seal disputed. It certainly seems rather curious, when the average production of raspberries is from 25 to 30 cwt. per acre and the price last year was, uncontrolled, £35, that now, when it is estimated that there is going to be a production of only 10 cwt. an acre, the increased price fixed by the Government should be only £2 more—that is, £37 per ton.
I should like to point out to the noble Earl that not only has the cost of labour enormously increased, but that the cost of manure has to be considered in producing this soft fruit. Before the war nitrate of soda could be bought at £12 10 s. per ton by market gardeners, but they tell me that they have to pay £28 a ton for it at the present moment. All I can say is that they are very lucky to be able to get it even at £28 a ton, because the other day when I tried to buy some nitrate of soda, as my oats were looking bad, I found it impossible to obtain it anywhere. I am also informed that fish manure, which used to be bought at £6 a ton before the war, now costs £25 a ton. That is an enormous increase; and, as far as I can see, there has been no corresponding increase in the price of raspberries.
With regard to the other point, it seems to me very unfair if it is the case, as I am informed it is—perhaps by noble friend will tell me if it is so or not—that fruit which has to be sent up by the small growers and which is taken by the Ministry of Food has to be sent in what are called chips—that is, small baskets—holding a small number of lbs. of fruit in each. These chips have to be bought ahead, otherwise one cannot get them manufactured; and I am told on the best authority that, although the fruit-growers have to pay 25 s. a dozen for these baskets, the Government allow them only 12 s. 6d.
I would also like to ask a question with regard to small fruit. The noble Earl

603
said that no black currants had been brought from Holland, but I noticed in the papers that the Government had bought 6,000 sieves of black currants from France, and that unfortunately in the delay of shipping them only 1,000 were any good in this country. I shall be glad if the noble Earl will tell me what was the cost of those currants and at what price it is intended to sell them in this country, if it is intended to put them on the market, although I rather gather that the Government do not intend to sell any fruit they buy but rather to turn it into jam for the use of the Army. I think my noble friend behind me was quite justified in saying that he thought there might be some difference between the price paid in Holland and what was paid in this country for black currants, for this reason, that when the Government bought butter in Holland they paid for it double the price at which they allowed the English producer to sell his produce. So there is reason to think the Government might follow the very bad precedent which they set in the case of butter. Further, I wish to know whether the Government are buying any other fruit from abroad, and, if so, whether they intend to use that fruit for making jam for the Army, or whether they intend to sell it to manufacturers, and, if so, at what price.
Then I would like to know how it came about that Mr. Keeble informed the fruit-growers on May 23 that he did not want any marrows at all, and then on June 10, when it was too late to do anything, he informed them that thousands of pounds would be wanted. I have heard myself from the Government Department interested in the question that they look forward to using marrows very extensively indeed for making jam for the Army. I venture to think that these questions ought to be cleared up, and I should also be glad if the Government would indicate what price they mean in the near future to put upon apples, if they intend to commandeer them, and also on plums and damsons, and further, if it is their intention to fix the price of vegetables, that growers should have notice of such intention well in advance.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords,
I am not prepared to question the general principle which my noble friend on behalf of the Food Control Department has laid down, but he is a very astute person, and he must have seen what was very obvious
604
in the statement he made, that the whole working out of the scheme depends on the doctrine of averages. I quite admit that it may be necessary to act on the doctrine of averages. It would be a very difficult thing to make a calculation and give one price in Worcestershire, another in Cambridgeshire, and another in Kent; but even assuming that the average was accurately and fairly taken as regards the price of production and the crop over the kingdom as a whole, my noble friend Lord Hindlip, who is personally familiar with the conditions of fruit culture in the Worcestershire district, has proved that on soft fruit the Worcestershire growers have made a heavy loss. Nothing that my noble friend has said has really refuted that statement; and what I want to impress upon him, though I am sure it is unnecessary, and through him on the Food Control Department, is that when you are dealing with averages, if you want to avoid discouraging cultivation, which you must do if you inflict great loss on growers, you must fix a price such as will cover cases like Worcestershire, where the crop has been a comparative failure. Otherwise what is the result? You inflict an undeserved loss on men who have been doing their best to assist food production in time of crisis. But that is the very least of the evil you do. You do more to discourage food production by such a result than by any other method, and that is where the Food Control Department, I think, has more than once gone wrong. They have been so concerned to see that the grower did not get too great a price in cases of successful production that they have forgotten that the far greater responsibility lies upon them to encourage production irrespective of whether a particularly fortunate individual has a good year. That is the moral which I would venture to urge through my noble friend, and I am perfectly certain he entirely agrees with me.
LORD HINDLIP: May I make one remark to the Lord Privy Seal? I understand that no fruit has been destroyed, but I gather that what possibly will happen unless the Ministry of Food take steps is that plants and canes will be ploughed up, and I think that the more threats are directed against the growers probably the more canes will come up. I am sure the noble Earl does not expect fruit-growers to continue to grow at a loss. They are not subsidised; they are not bakers. I am afraid

605
the fruit-growers will not be satisfied with the answer given on behalf of the Government this evening, and unless I am very much mistaken the Ministry of Food will have to alter the prices.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am very much gratified by the statement just made by my noble friend. I misunderstood his earlier statement. I thought he said that the process of destruction was going on. Lord Strachie asked two Questions. One was a little complicated and my knowledge is not very complete, and I propose to study our Official Report to-morrow morning and put myself in communication with Lord Strachie. With regard to chip baskets and black currants from France, I think there may be some misapprehension in the noble Lord's mind as to the function of the Food Ministry. I gather he thought its function was buying fruit and sending it to London in small baskets—
LORD HINDLIP: These chips are small baskets which hold 6 lbs. of soft fruit. The price which Lord Strachie gave of 25 s. a dozen ought, I think, to be 25 s. a gross, but the Government collar 50 per cent. all the same. What happened is this. The price was fixed in a great hurry and no preparation was made and no baskets sent down to the fruit centres by anybody. Unless the fruit is to spoil, which the noble Earl would agree would be regrettable, it ought to be sold in the open market, which the Government would not allow to be done. The only things which these unfortunate people had in which to send their fruit to the jam people were these chips, which cost 25 s. a gross, and the Government will only allow 12 s. 6d. a gross. For small people that is a very considerable loss.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Lord has made the case quite clear, and our official record will provide me with the text to make further inquiry. The only other point—perhaps I should not refer to it now that Lord Selborne has left the House—is the question of averages. It is always the unfortunate thing about averages that somebody gains by them and somebody loses by them. But it is impossible to fix prices according to the averages of a county. The ideal thing would be to fix an average for Evesham, one for Wisbech, one for Cornwall, and one for Lancashire.
606
That is clearly quite impossible, and the average therefore must be very much more widespread in its area. I am perfectly convinced of this, that those who are engaged in the Food Ministry in looking after the control of fruit are fully conscious of the plea that was put forward by Lord Selborne, that although it may be necessary to limit prices, none the less the process should not go so far as to discourage production.

FINANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 2.]
ALDERSHOT GAS, WATER, AND DISTRICT LIGHTING BILL. [H.L.]
  RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]

    PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

    Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

    Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5).

    London County Council (Money).

    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CANVEY DEEP-WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.