Lords Sitting of 10 July 1918

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM.
Sir Arthur Hamilton Lee, G.B.E., K.C.B., having been created Baron LEE of Fareham, of Chequers in the County of Buckinghamshire—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LAND DRAINAGE (PINCHBECK) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LAND DRAINAGE (WOODWALTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

THE MINISTRY OF FOOD.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN rose to ask His Majesty's Government the following Questions relating to the expenditure of the Ministry of Food, and the present cost of that Department to the State—

1. What has been the amount expended during the months of January, February, March, April, May, and June respectively. What has been approximately the total cost of that Department since the end of December, 1917.

2. What is the number of the staff employed at present, the amount of salaries which they receive, and what proportion of the whole cost to the State of the Ministry of Food is due to the distribution of food by a Government Department instead of by the ordinary channels previously used.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of raising any prolonged debate to-day, and the Questions which I have on the Paper are merely in continuation of Questions which I had begun to ask on February 19, but owing to the lamented illness of the late Controller and also owing to my own illness I was unable to pursue the inquiries which I was anxious to make at that time. I had ascertained what the expenditure of this Department was for the month of December, 1917, and as far as I recollect it was £48,000. The questions which I now
742
rise to ask His Majesty's Government relate to the expenditure of the Ministry of Food and the present cost of that Department to the State, and are as follows. [The noble Viscount then read his two Questions on the Paper.] I am specially anxious to know what the cost of the last item may be because through the ordinary channels, of course, it costs the State nothing, and several times it has been asked on this side of the House, I think by Lord Selborne as well as by myself, and we have never got any answer that I remember, why prices could not have been fixed upon the retailer—we were speaking at that time of the prices which applied to meat alone—because everything then would have accommodated itself to the price obtainable when the article had reached the retailer. We were told at one time that it might lead to very considerable hardships if that practice were pursued. But my noble friend Lord Selborne pointed out a case of extreme hardship on one occasion with regard to the price of butter, in which there was an enormous discrepancy between the price given by a middleman, I think, and the person to whom the butter was transferred afterwards. That is the subject upon which I hope the Government may be able to give us some information to-day. I do not propose to say anything further, but merely to put the Questions which stand in my name.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the amounts expended by the Ministry of Food during the months mentioned by the noble Viscount are as follows—

1918.

Administration.

Purchase of Foodstuffs.

Total.

£

£

£

January

99,231

16,767,651

16,866,882

February

193,873

23,428,329

23,622,202

March

230,142

30,572,188

30,802,330

April

188,872

36,022,250

36,211,122

May

137,649

39,849,466

39,987,115

June

334,490

37,361,127

37,695,617

1,184,257

184,001,011

185,185,268

The administrative expenditure is larger in March and June than in the other months because the expenses of Local Committees are met by quarterly payments made in those months; and also because in order to meet the convenience of the bankers the payment of monthly salaries, amounting to

743
about £34,000, was made upon June 1 instead of May 31, a practice which will be continued in future months. These figures do not include the payments made by the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies or the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply. The number of the staff employed at June 30 was—At Headquarters, 5,183; Local Food Control Committees and Provincial Organisations, 6,750; total, 11,933. The annual amount of their salaries is approximately £1,730,000, being an average of £145 per head.
The distribution of food by the Department is worked conjointly with the general control of prices as fixed by the Food Controller's Orders and with the organisation for the maintenance of supplies. It is, therefore, impossible, to discriminate between the two items, and the cost of these functions cannot be separated. It is hoped that the cost of the Department will be met by the margin above cost price at which foodstuffs are sold to the consumer. These margins do not necessarily entail an additional charge upon the consumer since the control exercised by the Ministry of Food has, by the restriction of profits, by the economical use of transport, and by the elimination of the unnecessary middlemen, undoubtedly caused the pries of the articles controlled to be substantially lower than if they had not been controlled.
In this connection I may, perhaps, quote rom the Fourth Report of the Committee on National Expenditure—
"The policy adopted is that of equalising the price of a given commodity, wherever bought by the Ministry, and selling the whole of the resultant product at a flat cost price which includes freight, insurance, and all administrative expenses. The Select Committee of the House of Commons published in Appendix 1 of their Second Report a summary of the measures taken by the Ministry of Food to limit the profits derivable from all transactions and sales relating to essential foodstuffs. The approval of the Costing Branch is necessary before any Order relating to the determination of prices or profits is sanctioned, and the principle adopted is that prices are fixed on the basis of actual current costs of raw material plus the manufacturing costs and a reasonable profit based on pre-year rates."
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: May I be allowed to ask one more question arising out of the answer? The noble Earl said that the method of purchase adopted by the Department will not cause any additional price to the consumer. He said nothing about the producer. What will be his position? Will it cause any less price to be given to him?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It depends very much upon the product to which Lord Chaplin refers. In wheat, for instance, it would cause no difference whatever to him. On the other hand, it might cause a difference to the producer of oranges in Spain. Generally speaking, I think, what I have said covers the ground accurately—that the reduction of price effected by these Orders produces an economy to the consumer, and, in addition to that economy, keeps down the price generally, and if, as is hoped, the price which is fixed is not such as unduly to discourage the producer, the gain to the public as a whole must be large.

THE ESTATE OF INVERLIEVER.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCH The DUKE of BUCCLEUCH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government what has been the annual and total expenditure by the Crown on the estate of Inverliever since its purchase in 1907; how much of that expenditure has been incurred in planting and replanting new ground; what is the total area of land so planted, and what number of plants have been used up to the present time; how has the total expenditure been apportioned under such heads as the, following: (1) fencing against cattle, sheep, and rabbits; (2) draining; (3) plants and planting; (4) beating up and establishing crop; (5) cleaning and bracken cutting; (6) nursery; (7) cost of clearing sheep; (8) general management and miscellaneous charges, etc.; and whether a detailed Annual Return will in future be made of all such expenditure; what has been the expenditure on permanent works such as buildings, cottages for married men, roads, etc.; what is the total valuation roll rental of the land planted and the valuation per acre; has there been any change in the valuation per acre of the woodlands since the estate was acquired by the Crown; what is the amount of rates and taxes paid in respect of the ownership and occupancy of the estate (1) on the planted area, and (2) on the remainder of the estate.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in asking this Question, which I am afraid is somewhat complicated, I may say that it is not put from any view of criticism. This

745
scheme at Inverliever was started, I think, about ten Years ago—in 1907. It is a most important development, and, to a certain extent, it is looked upon, I believe, as the start of a possible scheme of State afforestation. There is a great deal of interest taken in it, but it can really be of benefit to the nation only if these figures for which I am asking are made readily accessible to the public.
I believe that up to the present no figures have been given. I do not even know whether they have been asked for. I think your Lordships are under the impression that it would be absolutely essential to the security of the country that large areas should be planted in this way. The difficulty is to know really what the cost will be. There is a large number of enthusiasts very anxious to have the whole country planted, but always at someone else's expense. They invariably under-estimate the cost and take no notice of the difficulties, while, on the other side, they exaggerate the receipts. There is also the question of whether it should be undertaken by the State or by private enterprise. I think most, people now are of the opinion that it would be an advantage to the country if both methods were adopted, Whether this is so or not, it is desirable that the country, and those who wish to plant on their own account, should have all the information possible as to the cost that is likely to be incurred.
With regard to Inverliever, I believe that they had several failures there, but that does not in any way impair the value of the experiment, because the estate is situated in a district in which there is probably a large area of land suitable for planting, and it is quite well known and obvious to any one who has any experience in these matters that they are bound to have a certain number of failures in the first experiment. There are also many other difficulties which, I expect, will be found by the Woods and Forests authorities, that perhaps they did not realise when they first went into the scheme. They are fully realised by most private proprietors, though the public as a rule do not appreciate them. There is a further point, too. Many people look only at the cost of planting, and leave out the many other absolutely necessary works in the way of roads, houses, and matters of that kind, which are, of course, essential to any large scheme. In fact, I think the
746
idea of planting held by many people is very much the same as that which some of the members of the Government have as regards the growing of corn. Apparently it is thought that to grow corn you only have to plough the land and automatically the crop appears. Similarly, many people think that only a few trees have to be placed in the ground and eventually there will be a magnificent forest.
I must apologise for asking for details, but I believe the noble Lord who is going to answer will be good enough to give them. There is one point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. I cannot say for certain that it is correct, but I believe it to be correct. Time woodlands in the district were valued at 4s. per acre before the Woods and Forests Authority took up this scheme of planting, and I believe attempts had been made to got the valuation lowered as it was considered excessive, but without success. I am informed that, when the Crown took up this question, the value was immediately reduced from 4s. to 3s., and from 3s. to 1s.; that the valuation of the Crown woods has been put back to 3s. per acre, and that they pay rates only on a valuation of 1s. It is looked upon as an act of grace for the Crown to pay rates at all, but it is quite obvious, if anything is done on a large scale, it would he very serious for all the other ratepayers in the district if the Crown were only to pay one-third of what others are compelled to pay.
There is another point on which the noble Lord might give some information, and, that is the extent to which the area can be planted. Originally the whole area, I think, was considered to be plantable, but experience has shown that a good deal of the land cannot be planted. I hope, even if the returns show an excessive cost, it will not be thought that this is altogether against the experiment, because it is reasonable to suppose that experiments of this kind must be costly. At the same time it will probably be shown that the State, in the matter of afforestation as well as other matters, is not very economical in carrying out their work.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, I will endeavour to answer, as far as the information I have will enable me to do so, the Questions which the noble Duke

747
has put. The estate of Inverliever was purchased in 1907, and the first accounts which can be placed before your Lordships are for the year 1908. The accounts of the estate are under three headings—capital, farms, and afforestation. The accounts are as follows—In 1908, capital, £25,341 19 s. 6d.; farms, £5 4s. 4d.; afforestation. £69 14 s. 9d.—total, £25,416 18 s. 7d. In 1909, capital, £4,865 5s. 4d. ' farms, £444 18 s. 2d.; afforestation, £1,879 19 s. 8d.—total £7,190 3s. 2d. In 1910, capital, £198 6s. 8d.; farms, £1,565 4s. 5d., afforestation, £2,508 10 s. 10 d.—total, £1,272 1s. 11 d. In 1911, capital, £17 19 s. 6d., farms, £410 2s. 2d. afforestation, £1,731 14 s. 11 d.—total, £2,159 16 s. 7d. In 1912, capital, £1,780 14 s. 7d., farms. £375 6s. 2d.; afforestation. £2.779 12 s. 2d.—total, £4,935 12 s. 11 d. In 1913, capital, £226 2s. 4d., farms, £395 16 s. 11 d., afforestation, £2,351 12 s. 7d.—total, £2,973 11 s. 10 d. In 1914, capital, £240 3s. 8d.; farms, £2,993 11 s. 1d.; afforestation, £1,361 10 s. 9d.—total, £4,595 7s. 6d. In 1915, capital, £520 4s. 10 d.; farms, £484 13 s. 9d.; afforestation, £1,367 15 s. 1d.—total, £2,372 13 s. 8d. In 1916, capital, £40 3s. 4d., farms, £528 6s. 6d.; afforestation, £1,422 14 s. 8d.—total, £1,991 4s. 6d. In 1917, capital, £311 5s. 4d.; farms. £872 0s. 9d.; afforestation, £1,389 8s. 7d,—total, £2,572 14 s. 8d.; making a total for capital of £33,542 7s. 1d.; for farms, £8,075 4s. 3d.; and for afforestation, £16,862 14 s.—a grand total of £58,480 5s. 4d.
The noble Duke asks how much of this expenditure has been incurred in planting and replanting new ground. I have one figure here which might answer the Question, and that is the actual cost of the plants purchased, and the actual cost of putting in the ground. I do not know whether it is what the noble Duke requires, but the figure is £2,899 12 s. I have a larger figure which I imagine is probably what the noble Duke wants. It is really the cost of establishing the plantation, and would include fencing, cleaning, cutting the weeds, draining, and the expenses of the nursery. The total cost of that is £7,406, or equal to about £6 per acre planted. The noble Duke asks for "the total area planted, and the number of plants used up to the present time." The total area planted is 1,256 acres, and the total number of plants used is 3,483,000,
748
or, roughly speaking, about 3,000 plants to the acre. In the course of his speech the noble Duke also asked for some idea of the amount of land which has been found suitable for planting. The total area of the estate is 12,684 acres, of which a total of 3,600 acres has been found, in our recent surveys, to be capable of afforestation. The remainder is suitable for grazing, a great deal is bog and rock, and there is also about 1,500 acres of good ground which we are keeping for farms and small holdings.
The next Question of the noble Duke relates to the total expenditure apportioned under the following heads. Fencing has cost £918 14 s. 2d.; draining, £581 3s.; plants and planting, £2,044 1s. 5d.; beating up and establishing crop, £396 9s. 10 d.; cleaning and bracken cutting after planting, £430 2s. 4d.; nursery, £3,033 11 s. 10 d. cost of clearing sheep, £3,975 3s. 4d., while the general management and miscellaneous charges are £4,502 12 s. 10 d. I should, perhaps, have told the noble Duke in my statement in regard to £6 per acre that the management charges are not included.
The next Question is about a detailed annual return. It is the intention to give detailed annual returns in the Annual Report of the Forestry branches of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Office of Woods which have been suspended during the war. Meanwhile a summary is prepared and published annually in the Report to Parliament of the Commissioner of Woods.
The expenditure on permanent works, such as buildings, cottages, roads, &c., is as follows:—Erection and improvement of buildings and cottages, for farms, £1,639; and for forest, £2,905. The expenditure on roads in the forest is £31. The total valuation rental roll of the land planted, including plantations in existence at the time of purchase, is £66 17 s., and the valuation per acre is 1s. The following changes in the valuation per acre in the woodlands have taken place since the estate was acquired by the Crown:—Up to Whitsuntide. 1910, they were 4s. per acre; for two years up to Whitsuntide, 1912, 3s. per acre; subsequently, 1s. per acre. I have no information in regard to the noble Duke's statement that since that date they have been raised above 1s. As to the amount of rates and taxes paid, the following donations in lieu of rates have been

749
paid by the Crown up to March 31, 1918, in respect of the ownerships and occupancy of the estate:—On the planted area, £21 18 s. 9d.; on the remainder of the estate, £220. If the noble Duke wants any further information I shall be glad to get it for him, and I shall be happy to hand him a statement showing the figures from which I have been quoting.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for the Return that he has given. I am sure it will be very much appreciated, especially in Scotland; and if he will give me a copy of the figures, as they are rather difficult to follow in debate, I shall be much obliged.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the noble Lord would also add information as to whether the valuation of the surrounding land belonging to private owners remains as it was while the Crown land has been reduced, and why, it would be welcome.
LORD CLINTON: Certainly.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause I:
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, 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, 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
750
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, or by taking the same in feu:
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 THE EARL OF LICHFIELD had an Amendment on the Paper to omit from Clause 1 the words "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 Earl said: I put down this Amendment for striking out these words in the hope of finding that the Government would accept the position as it was left in Committee, and therefore that all we should have to do to-day would be to select the best wording possible so as to make the Bill as effective as it can be made. That was why I set down the Amendment to strike out Lord Strachie's words and to substitute after Clause 1, as a new clause, the words—
.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, with respect to any land acquired by them under this Act or the principal Act or under Part I of the Development and Roads Improvement Act, 1909, whether acquired before or after the passing of this Act, delegate to the council of the county in which the land so acquired is situate with the consent of that county council all or any of the powers conferred upon the Board by section four of the principal Act.
Those of your Lordships who were present at the Committee stage of this Bill will remember that Lord Strachie's Amendment came first, and that my Amendment was down after his, and that Lord Clinton had another Amendment in which he proposed to set up a body of persons in a particular county of whom at least a majority should be members of the county council. We then said that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the county councils. They thought that there were quite enough

751
independent bodies already, and their point in seeking to help under this Bill, was that they might make use of the machinery of their small holdings committee—of the staff and of the knowledge and efficiency gained through many years of working. They thought that by that means to help to make this Bill, when put into operation, as great a success as possible. I stated on the Committee stage that the county councils did not consider that the appointing of such a body as was then proposed would be at all a desirable thing, and would not meet their wishes. Therefore we had to divide on Lord Strachie's Amendment, which the Government refused to accept. We carried Lord Strachie's Amendment, and the words were inserted in the Bill.
I have put words down so that your Lordships might to-day, if there had been no opposition, select which of the two wordings you thought most suitable. My own friends considered in the Committee stage that the words I have just read out would on the whole be the best, but the situation is now entirely changed, because we have also down a Government Amendment to strike out the very clause that I am proposing with the intention of putting in an Amendment, which is as follows—
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, with respect to any land acquired by them under this Act or the principal Act, delegate any of the powers conferred upon the Board by this Act or the principal Act to any body of persons constituted by the Board for this purpose or with the consent of the council to the council of the county in which the land so acquired is situate."
There you have that body of persons to whom the county councils object. Such being the case, I certainly shall not run the risk of losing Lord Strachie's wording by asking you to strike it out when there is a possibility of my not being able to carry my clause and of the Government being able to obtain the Amendment which they have put down.
It is very desirable to come to some agreement which will be satisfactory to all parties, and which will help to make this Bill work smoothly and successfully. May I make the following suggestion to my noble friend Lord Clinton? As far as the county councils are concerned I think they would be satisfied if the noble Lord would consent to make some modification in his own clause to this effect. He proposes that
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, with respect to any land acquired by them under this Act or the principal Act, delegate any—"
752
Then insert "or all"—
"of the powers conferred upon the Board by this Act or the principal Act."
Then strike out the following words—
"to any body of persons constituted by the Board for this purpose or."
If on consideration we could come to some agreement about those two words being added and the other words being struck out, then I can assure Lord Clinton that, as far as all his other Amendments on the first page of the Amendment Paper are concerned, the county councils would be pleased to accept them. That is a definite suggestion which I ask him to consider.
Surely it would be better, if possible, to come to some compromise of that sort in order that we might accept the Government Amendments and not have to vote again on exactly the same words that we voted on in Committee, because that would be the result if we go on and he moves the omission of the words that Lord Strachie introduced in Committee, and on which we got a majority. I shall not, therefore, move the Amendment standing in my name, and I hope my noble friend will be good enough to consider the proposal I have made.
LORD CLINTON: I am, of course, very glad to consider any proposal put forward by the county councils which will in some way meet the object we have in view. I do not consider that what the noble Earl has put forward now is in any way a compromise, because it does away entirely with the principle for which I was fighting. The noble Earl no doubt recollects what that principle is. I have no objection to placing in the hands of a body composed as to the majority of county councillors the powers of the Board under this Act. We were anxious to get the assistance of the county councils in all these matters, and the reasons why I was not prepared to grant the powers to the county councils alone, without the addition of other members, were two. First, that the whole of the finance was national funds under the charge of the Board, and we did not consider that it would have been right to hand over those funds directly to another body. Furthermore, it seems to be a wrong principle that any body should be charged with the administration of work involving national expenditure without having any responsibility for the funds. That was the first reason. The next reason was, I think, a

753
good one, although totally different. These colonies will probably not be set up in every county; there is no reason why they should be. There will then be certain counties in which there will be people resident who are anxious to get a footing in these colonies, but who will have very little chance of doing so if they were administered entirely by the county councils, because the county council would naturally, one knows quite well, favour the people who come from their own county. It is their duty, and they would do it. In addition, there will be people from the great cities, say from London, who have practically no county to go to at all, no county that they belong to. They would have very little chance of getting a footing in any of these colonies.
For these two reasons—first of all of finance, and, secondly, to safeguard the interests of those men who are not attached to any county which has a colony—we thought fit to claim that if the powers of the Board were delegated to any body it should be a mixed body, partly representing the county council and partly representing the Board. That was not accepted by your Lordships. But now on Report, as you already have a clause giving power to the Board to appoint county councils to manage these affairs, it seemed right that I should also put in a power to the Board to appoint a committee to manage their affairs. I would rather have the joint committee, but your Lordships would not have it, and unless the noble Earl is willing to accept something of the kind that I have suggested I am afraid I cannot regard anything he has said as a compromise.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not know whether I shall be in order, because, as far as I can make out, there is no Amendment before the House at present, the noble Earl not having moved.
LORD CLINTON: I understood that the noble Earl had moved his Amendment. I will then move my own Amendment, Which is to leave out the words beginning with "provided" in line 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("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
754
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 Clinton.)
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has not given any other reasons than he gave on a previous occasion, when he objected to the Amendment which was afterwards put into the Bill and which he now proposes to leave out. He said his principal objection was to a body like the county council managing money that was State money and had been voted by Parliament. I should have thought there were many cases where the county councils administer money which is State money voted by Parliament. But I was not aware that there was going to be a large amount of money in this particular case, because the Board has no power to buy land. It will only be the money they spend on equipment, so it is not a very large amount. There might have been something in the noble Lord's argument if he was going to buy a million acres of land, as Sir Richard Winfrey looks forward to buying in the future. Now, however, it is only a small matter of equipment, and he is apparently afraid that the county councils are bodies which are not to be trusted with that amount of Government money.
Surely the noble Lord knows that county councils are continually entrusted by Parliament with very large sums of money to deal with on behalf of the Government. There are many cases where the Government say that if the county council will provide 50 per cent. of some expenditure they will provide the other 50 per cent. I think this was the case with the mental deficiency, or at any rate the tuberculosis, control in counties. They allowed the county councils to have the management of this; and I should be sorry to think that, in the opinion of the noble Lord, the county councils have not administered that money to the satisfaction of the ratepayers and of the taxpayers at large as a general rule. So that I cannot see any objection with regard to finance. But supposing there is an objection in regard to finance, the noble Lord and the Board of Agriculture have the matter entirely in their own hands. This Amendment is not mandatory; it is simply permissive. If the Board of Agriculture think the county council is the best body to administer the Small Holding Colonies Act, they will hand it over to that body; but

755
if they do not think so, they will hold the administration in their own hands. Therefore I cannot see why the noble Lord is afraid of this provision.
Lord Clinton then said, with regard to people living in a great city like London, that he thought the county councils would not treat them in the same way that they would treat those in their own rural areas. But there again, if a county council were included to mismanage the powers given to them by the Board of Agriculture, all the Board has to do is to say, "We will not give yon these powers unless you make provision for men living in big cities; or make provision that in all cases people from these cities may come in on equal terms with the people living in the county itself."
May I say that only to-day, at a meeting of the Small Holdings Committee of the County Councils Association held in London, that Committee unanimously affirmed their desire that there should be a permissive power, and a permissive power only, for the Board of Agriculture to delegate powers with regard to small holdings to the county councils. They had before them the noble Lord's Amendment constituting another body besides the county councils for the management of small holdings. This important and representative body unanimously condemned that Amendment, and strongly objected to another body being set up in the place of the Board of Agriculture; in fact, they took greater objection to it than they did to the previous Amendment of the noble Lord, because that previous Amendment certainly had the saving grace that the body to be set up was to have on it a majority of county councillors but this new Amendment goes one worse, and, as far as the county councils are concerned, there is to be no member of the county council on this body.
LORD CLINTON: Why?
LORD STRACHIE: It will be only the will of the Board of Agriculture of the day and not a statutory right, which was what the noble Lord proposed to give before. I am sorry that Lord Clinton will not accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Lichfield, who approved the noble Lord's Amendment, but striking out "any body of persons constituted by the Board for this purpose," leaving it in the hands of the county council. If the noble
756
Lord opposite persists in refusing the compromise suggested by the noble Earl—with which compromise I agree—I can see no alternative to resisting Lord Clinton's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that Lord Strachie is under a misapprehension, as I think is also my noble friend Lord Lichfield. Lord Strachie said that the noble Earl was proposing a compromise. That really is not so. Lord Lichfield is proposing that the whole responsibility shall be put in the hands of the county council. That is anything but a compromise; it is absorbing everything—quite the contrary. Lord Clinton really has proposed a compromise, and I submit with great respect that this is probably the best way of proceeding. Lord Clinton has said that he is quite prepared that there shall be a majority of county councillors. Lord Lichfield says, No, they must be all county councillors, and, above all, county councillors of the county in which the colony happens to be situate.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I was alluding to the independent body that was to be set up, not to the delegation to the county councils.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I really think that both were offered. Now, Lord Lichfield at the present moment says that every one upon that committee must be a member of the county council of the county in which the colony happens to be situate. Neither Lord Lichfield nor Lord Strachie has met the question about finance. This is not finance to provide small holdings; small holdings are the duty of the county council. This is State money to provide finance for colonies of soldiers irrespective of their county residence; and I do not think that one can reasonably ask the Treasury to consent to a great grant of State money being handed over, as far as administration is concerned, to county councils which have no responsibility whatever for the administration of that money.
Lord Strachie mentioned cases, with which we are all familiar, where State money is handed over to be dealt with by municipal authorities or by county councils. He mentioned one special case

757
where 50 per cent. is handed over by the Treasury if the local authority finds another 50 per cent. Education is another case in point. But in this and in all similar cases the money handed over by the Treasury is supplemented by money found by the ratepayers, administered by county councillors who are responsible to those ratepayers for the ratepayers' money. Here no such responsibility exists. Moreover, in the case of education, if the Education Department consider that the local authority is not using the proportion of the State grant properly, the money is withdrawn; but that could not be done in the case of a soldiers' colony. You cannot close up a soldiers' colony because the county council manages the fund carelessly. Tins being State money, it requires State control in its administration. It is for a local purpose, it is true, but it is for a local purpose to which local rates do not contribute.
Now, Lord Strachie put words into my noble friend Lord Clinton's mouth which he neither used nor implied—namely, that this is done because the Government, or the Board of Agriculture, distrust the county councils. I do not think that this is a fair comment to make. It is not that the Government or any Department of the Government distrust the county councils. Far from it. But, as a colony will probably not be situated in every county, you are going to have whole county councils which will have no voice whatever in the control of these colonies. Lord Clinton proposes a scheme by which county councils, as such, would have control; and aggregate committees, I think, must admittedly be necessary for looking after these colonies. It is also necessary that all views and all interests should be recognised. Now, what chance has the Londoner to get places in a Lincolnshire or in a Lancashire colony? I should think very small.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: The proposals are that all or any of the powers be delegated. Under those words surely the Board of Agriculture can make any arrangement they like with any individual county more or less as to finance. With regard to having a certain number of settlers in the particular county, surely the wording leaves it entirely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture to reserve their rights and to make any arrangement they like with the
758
county council. It is entirely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture to do so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend has not the smallest objection to the words "or all" being inserted, but Lord Lichfield says you must come to an agreemen with the county councils before—you must impose terms and say to the Lancashire County Council, "You have to appoint so many people from London or Birmingham."
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I mean as settlers.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, as settlers. That is what Lord Strachie says—"We will not give you powers unless you deal with the townsmen." I do not think that this is the way in which we ought to approach county councils in the matter, and I believe that if you set up a joint committee it would not be necessary to impose these terms in advance. With one committee meeting together, representing two or three or four great county councils, with a majority of county councillors and two or three persons representing soldiers and sailors and the Department which is answerable for the finance, I believe these problems will solve themselves. I greatly hope, therefore, that the Amendment of Lord Clinton may be adopted. I am sure that in working it would prove to be the most profitable way. I see all kinds of objections to saying now, "We will give control or part control of such a colony to such and such a county, subject to a variety of conditions safeguarding this interest or that." If you set up a committee, with good will I believe it will solve the problem far better than by placing it under restrictions and regulations which I believe would be irksome to all parties.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite has just complained that neither Lord Lichfield nor Lord Strachie was prepared to engage in any form of compromise. Let us see for a moment what the Government compromise is. The Government on the last occasion, when the Bill was in Committee, made a certain proposition—namely, that these joint committees should be set up containing a majority of county councillors, but containing also a number of outside elements. That your Lordships would not

759
have. The proposal was defeated, and has apparently gone by the board.
Then His Majesty's Government come down with a different proposal, merely suggesting that His Majesty's Government should have it in their power, without informing any one and without consulting the county councils at all, to create fresh bodies, with no promise that any county councillors should be on them, in order to administer this Act. That alternative is placed first as being presumably the one which it might be supposed the Board of Agriculture would prefer; and then the noble Earl who has just spoken speaks of this as a compromise. My Lords, it is a definite hardening of the Government's attitude, not merely asking us to reverse the decision that was taken on the last occasion, but asking us to adopt a new plan more hostile to the county councils than that which was rejected. In the meantime the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has argued as though the provision which was rejected was the one on which we were arguing. It is not. What we are arguing about is the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, that this clause or part of it should he omitted with a view of inserting the words in his Amendment on the Paper. Therefore I cannot see that His Majesty's Government are offering anything at all in the way of a compromise, but rather the contrary.
My Lords, why is it that the Board will not accept the county councils to act for them in this matter? There is the preliminary safeguard which my noble friend Lord Lichfield mentioned, that in the first instance they need not delegate all these powers to a county council, but can reserve any they please and make any condition they like. But it is not to he supposed that after having made such preliminary arrangements as then choose they will then lose sight of the whole matter. It is quite competent for them to ask for yearly or half-yearly Reports of what has been done, and if they do not approve of the way in which a particular county council is conducting a particular colony—supposing, for instance, it is confining the accommodation to inhabitants of the county and debarring any outsider and that this is disapproved of by the Board—the Board can resume its own powers at any time or make any remonstrance it chooses, and insist that a certain number of places shall be set apart for men from outside.
760
I really think the Government would be wise in this matter to show confidence in the county councils. The noble Earl resented the imputation that their action tends to show distrust of those bodies, but I cannot help thinking that their action will be so regarded; and it is very undesirable, particularly at a time when owing to national exigencies a number of other agricultural bodies have been set up which are in no way representative, which have performed a great deal of most useful public work, but whose operations are only accepted because we are living in war time—accepted with the concurrence of the public—that any action should be taken which appears to indicate a desire to remove local management from the ambit of the small holdings committees of the county councils. I really cannot think that there is much in the financial argument which has been used. The Board, as I pointed out, are in no sense parting with any of their powers, but are merely entrusting them for a purpose to the local body, and I most sincerely think that His Majesty's Government and the Board will be wise in using the county councils and their very competent small holdings committees for this particular purpose.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should not venture to intervene were it not that I am able to introduce something quite fresh into the debate. I was present on Monday morning at a meeting of the Gloucestershire County Council, in which the general policy of the Government in regard to small holdings was discussed, with special reference to this Bill. We had the advantage of a speech from the gentleman who was put in charge of that portion of the original Act which they were trying to put into operation in the course of last year. He, with everybody else who spoke, condemned the policy of the Government as declared in this Bill. Unanimously a resolution was passed on the subject, and it was directed that copies of their resolution condemning this Bill should be sent to every member of your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, the difficulties of paper and post have made it impossible to reach your Lordships yet. I am glad to be able, on behalf of that county council, to convey to your Lordships' House their unanimous disapproval of this particular Bill.

761
In these circumstances, I venture to hope that your Lordships will adhere to the decision to which you came last week. We have discussed the matter thoroughly, and last week your Lordships decided rather to adopt the policy of the noble Earl behind me, Lord Lichfield, and of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, than the policy of His Majesty's Government. I can imagine—and I am sure my noble friend who has just spoken will share with me the opinion—that if a few years ago His Majesty's then Government had introduced on the Report stage of a measure an Amendment directly contrary to an Amendment which had been agreed to by your Lordships in the Committee stage, the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill would have been amongst the very first to denounce us for treating the House with a considerable want of respect. We learnt a good deal at that time, and I am happy to pass on to your Lordships this afternoon something of the experience which I then gained.
I think it is scarcely treating your Lordships with proper respect to try to reverse so completely on Report an Amendment deliberately introduced by your Lordships 011 the Committee stage. Only one thing further do I wish to say, and that is with regard to the difficulties which the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal anticipates in regard to getting men not from that particular county on to the colony in some other county. I am quite sure that we should all wish to help the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he wished to introduce on Third Reading any Amendment to facilitate their getting their share of the colonies when they are established. There is no member of your Lordships' House who would not be glad to see such an Amendment introduced by the Government, and I am sure that no obstacle would be put in the way of the noble Earl who speaks on behalf of the County Councils Association. On the whole, therefore, I hope your Lordships will decide this afternoon to stick to the Amendment which you introduced last week.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House I may say that I do not wish to press this Amendment, as the opinion of the House is apparently against it. I regret it cannot be accepted, because the Government wish to make use of the county councils if possible, but owing to the
762
extreme way in which it is put. I am afraid it will be very difficult for them to do so. I beg leave, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to delete the words "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: I have put this Amendment down for your Lordships' consideration because there was no Amendment on this point in Committee, and it was only cursorily alluded to at that time. To my mind the proposal in the Bill involves quite a new principle, and that is that the Government should be allowed to acquire land not merely by lease or purchase but by having a rentcharge. I do not think it was sufficiently thought out by your Lordships' House when the Bill passed through Committee, nor did we sufficiently consider the dangers which go with this new principle. Practically it means, if this is done, that a landowner will have parted with the freehold of his land. Supposing there is a mortgage on it, he will not be able to realise; or supposing there is a charge for the younger children, or a jointure, there will be difficulty in realising the capital. You will not be able to sell the land at a future time to meet any charge that might be incurred. I am aware that I may be told that this can be done only by the voluntary consent of the landowner. I think that was the very brief reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. That does not seem to me to be any reason why, because it happens that the Treasury are not inclined to find the money for purchase, you should introduce a new and dangerous system whereby the Government may become possessed of land in the country in this way. It seems to me that in view of the short time which we hope the war will last, when the Treasury will be able to find more money for the purchase of land or its lease, they might allow the county councils to borrow money from other sources. However that may be, this seems to me to be a dangerous principle to introduce, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me in omitting these words, so that it will be impossible for the Government to acquire land "by rentcharge or other annual payment." I hope your Lordships will carefully consider the difficult position in which it would put some landowners. There is also another thing

763
to be thought of. There may be a certain number of landowners who say that it does not matter and that they will get an annual income. They might not see that they would be prejudiced thereby from putting any further charge on the land to meet any necessary charges. If these words are omitted there is nothing whatever to prevent the Government continuing to go on getting these colonies on lease until the time when they can purchase them. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("lease") to the second ("or") in line 4.—(Viscount Galway.)
LORD CLINTON: The noble Viscount has anticipated the first objection to this Amendment in that the Bill is a voluntary one, under which no landowner need take advantage of any of the terms laid down. It is perfectly obvious that if land is to be purchased everybody would prefer to have payment in cash. I think I have already stated—and I will not trouble your Lordships again on the point—why at the present moment cash cannot be paid. How is the noble Viscount really conferring any advantage upon owners by declining to allow these words to remain in the Bill? if land is leased by the Board and a colony placed upon it, nobody can occupy it as a farm because the colony is still there. If, however, it is taken by way of rentcharge your "rentcharge" then becomes as saleable as your land was before. The rentcharge for perpetuity guaranteed by the Crown will be as saleable as any land, and it seems to me that you are taking away from the owner the possibility of acquiring a certain rent by way of rentcharge, and, in the event of his wish to sell, of being able to dispose of that rentcharge in the market. I think on the whole, although I admit that no one likes the system of rentcharge in place of purchase, it would he a misfortune for owners themselves if the alternative was not given.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am not quite clear as to why it is necessary to place this provision in the Bill. The effect of the clause as it stands is to forbid the Treasury to advance cash for payment, as I understand. I should have thought it would be always within the option of the Department to pay or not to pay, and it seems to me scarcely necessary
764
that His Majesty's Government should place this restriction upon itself as a permanency, rather than leave it to the Administration of the day to act as may be considered best in the interests of the finances of the country. I can conceive a case where a large purchase might be made, or might be desired, and the landowner might state that he was willing to sell but that he was not able to do so unless a particular charge was paid off. The Government then might think it worth while to pay off that particular charge in cash, and allow the balance to remain on rentcharge. I can conceive a great number of different methods which it might be convenient for His Majesty's Government to use, and I do not understand why they are so desirous of completely binding their own hands as they do by this clause. I can only assume that it has been inserted at the instance of the Treasury, who might find themselves over-persuaded by the Board of Agriculture in a particular instance. I am not afraid that any hardship will be inflicted on individuals because the whole thing is voluntary; there is no compulsion in the matter; but I am afraid there may be cases in which highly suitable and desirable blocks of land may be unobtainable owing to the existence of this extremely rigid provision.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite, and also with the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I raised this question myself on the Second Reading, but got no satisfactory reply whatever from the Government. I pointed out then that I thought the way the Bill was drafted would stand in the way of the Government themselves because there are undoubtedly cases, a large number of cases, of mortgaged estates at the present time. I would remind noble Lords opposite that in these days mortgages on land are being called in constantly because people are all anxious, naturally, to get the 6 per cent. interest which is available now. To deprive yourself of the power of purchase because the Treasury are determined not to agree to it appears to me to be no reason whatever. This is a matter of policy, and it is not the business of the Treasury to lay down policy. That is the business of the Cabinet and of the Cabinet alone. The business of the Treasury is to find the money for the policy which the Cabinet lays down. I want to know why the Government think

765
it necessary to abjure purchase altogether. If want to acquire land and make the colonies a success, I have always held the opinion that the best way is to do it by purchase, and then make the small-holders the owners on the easiest possible terms. Then you may make a great success of your colonisation policy. I am perfectly certain that the tenants, if they are soldiers who have come back from the war, will not care to be tenants of local bodies, but that they would infinitely prefer to have the land themselves for their own.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I did not quite understand how the Question was put. I wish to leave the words out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I put the Question in the usual form—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part." Those who wished the words to remain in said "Content.," and those who wished them to go out said "Not-Content." And I said the "Not-Contents" have it.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to omit the words "or by taking the same in feu." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to draw attention to what was said by Lord Clinton in answer to the noble Viscount opposite, that a feu consisted of 999 years. I must differ from my noble friend on that. A feu is in perpetuity. I wish to make that perfectly clear. The word "feu" has of late years in your Lordships' House been used in a very casual sort of way, and I should like to explain to you in the first place what a lease is, and what a feu is. A lease is a right of occupation in certain land in return for a sum of rent, and in the document everything that is leased is specified. Now a feu is an entirely different thing. A feu is an absolute conveyance of land in return for an annual payment, and the "feuar" can sell or convey his feu to any one else. In contrast with a lease, which is a right of limited occupation, a feu carries all proprietorial rights in the land and everything else, even minerals and anything there may be. You will see, therefore, that it is a great deal larger than any lease that can be arranged. The Bill is to apply to both countries, and I maintain that the way land should be taken should be identical in both cases. I think that is only fair. The feu is a popular form of tenancy, and in case a house is built on the land it is good security for the money.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("or by taking the same in fen").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STANMORE: As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill pointed out in the Committee stage, the feuing can only be done by agreement. The owners of the land have complete control as to what land is taken. It seems to me in every way desirable that the words should be left in, so as to admit of no doubt that the land may be felted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think that your Lordships will see that this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is in fact consequential upon that which your Lordships have adopted, possibly owing to some lack of observation as to what was happening on the part of His Majesty's Government. But I confess that if it is the deliberate intention of the House, as it seems to be, to maintain the Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Galway, it seems almost necessary and common sense to adopt that which my noble friend opposite has just moved. I am bound to say, if I might give advice to His Majesty's Government, that if I was in their place I should move in Third Reading to omit this provision altogether. It appears to me to serve no useful purpose, and I do not think that His Majesty's Government will desire to be bound to acquire only on lease all the extra land which is to be obtained under this Bill. If the provision were struck out altogether, then His Majesty's Government and the Board could deal freely and make such bargains as were possible.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am very much obliged for the observation of the noble Marquess, and I will take the most careful note of his suggestion. Meanwhile I should like to retain the feu. This is not a consequential Amendment, because the feu does not apply to England, and the earlier words do not apply to Scotland. It is true that this is analogous to the previous words.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I ought to have used the word "analogous" instead of "consequential."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: At the instance of my noble friend Lord Galway, what I look upon as a very valuable right

767
of English landlords has been taken away. He has excluded the English landlord from getting what I regard as a very valuable right, and I am sorry, because I am an English landlord. But I am also a Scottish landlord, and having lost the rentcharge in England, I desire, if possible, to retain the power of feuing in Scotland. I think that it is a great pity that these limitations both on the power of the Government to acquire and upon the rights of the landlords to sell should be imposed. I hope at any rate that these words about feuing may be loft as regards Scotland.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sorry to say that I was out of the House when my noble friend Lord Galway's Amendment was moved. Had I been here I would certainly have asked him not to press his Amendment, because I want the House to understand that there is no compulsory power in this Bill—absolutely none—and the whole question is whether the landowner should, if he prefers it, be paid in a certain way. That is the only question, and I cannot think it is really serving the interests of the landowner to diminish the choice. I feel this so strongly as a landowner that I hope the Government will give notice of words which will remedy the mischief that has been done to the agricultural landowner by the acceptance of my noble friend's amendment, and that we may have the question debated again after the Third Reading stage and before the stage of passing comes. I am not a Scottish landowner, and I have no right to speak with authority in the presence of many of my friends who are, but I cannot see what, advantage it is to the Scottish landowner to have this choice, which cannot be imposed upon him except by his own free will, withdrawn from him.
LORD SALTOUN: This Bill has been through the House of Commons, where there are about seventy or eighty Scottish Members, and not one proposed that the feu should be put in. In your Lordships' House I think that I myself and two or three others present are the only Scottish Peers, and there are very few who know anything about the feu. Nine out of ten of our Scottish Peers are away serving their country in various ways, and are not able to be here to support me. I think that every argument that has been used on behalf of the Amendment of my noble
768
friend Lord Galway is doubly strong in regard to feu, and I intend to hold by my Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I am sure that the noble Lord opposite is under a misapprehension, and I am afraid in time that Lord Galway will find he also has been under a misapprehension. This Bill as it stands gives the landowner no cash, and now under Lord Galway's Amendment no rentcharge. The result is that the only thing he can get under the Bill, as he has amended it, will be a lease. What will he have to sell or raise money upon? He will have a terminable rent—a Government rent, it is true—and a more or less distant reversion. It would be much better for him to have the alternative of rentcharge. Now Lord Saltoun proposes to deprive the Scottish landowner of that valuable alternative of putting into the market a perpetual feu duty. I cannot believe that he really wishes the Scottish landowner to have no alternative except to offer the reversion of a lease to raise money upon or to sell. Personally if I were a Scottish landowner I certainly should not wish this Amendment to pass.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: There may be a difference of opinion on that. On the whole I think it would be better to leave the Bill as it is. I cannot speak for very many. At first I was inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Saltoun. I think there are a good many Scottish proprietors who would certainly like to have the option. I do not know which is best, the ordinary rentcharge or the feu. The Inland Revenue, I believe, value the rental of unfeued land at a higher rate than felled land, but I think that feu duty is an excellent security, and it also does away with what I think is a great danger—that the land may be leased for a short time and then thrown back on the owner's hands in a very bad state.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I might give notice that on the Third Reading I shall propose that the whole of this proviso be omitted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to amend the proviso at the end of the clause, after to be acquired,"by inserting" by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after the first ("acquired") insert ("by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE DUKE OF RUCCLEUCH: I am afraid I cannot agree that this is a drafting Amendment. It entirely takes away powers from Scotland. I think it is just as important that the county councils of Scotland should have a say as the county councils of England. In fact, the case happened the other day in my own county of Dumfriesshire.
LORD CLINTON: We will have that put right on the Third Reading. There is no adaptation clause for Scotland, and obviously that ought to go in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, after "consultation" in the proviso, to insert "where such consultation is practicable." The noble Lord said: In discussing this provision on the Committee stage I think I told my noble friend that, while I accepted his Amendment, it would probably be necessary at this stage to make some alterations in it, and the first is the insertion of "where such consultation is practicable." There are some instances where it is necessary to carry through a sale at very short notice, or where it is necessary to carry it through with secrecy, and I do not wish the Board to be hound down to refuse an offer of a sale because it has not had time to consult the county council. There is no objection to consulting the county council; in fact, there is a great advantage in doing so, because there is no desire, of course, to compete with them in land which they may require for a similar purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, after ("consultation") insert ("where such consultation is practicable").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: This sub-clause was inserted in Committee at my instance, and, as my noble friend has just observed, he stated then that in accepting it he would have to move some Amendments of this nature. I thought at first that these words "where such consultation is practicable" would not be interpreted in quite the same way that my noble friend now suggests that they should be. I think he said that in the case of an offer of land the Board might have to accept it in a great
770
hurry and that then they would consider it not practicable to consult the county council. Of course, the whole object of the Amendment that I introduced was to guard against such a transaction, because with the knowledge that the county councils have of the land in their counties it surely is desirable that they should be first consulted so as to find out what they have to say about it. But under the words that my noble friend has just proposed the Board of Agriculture practically need not, if they like, consult the county councils at all. They may say, "Oh well, it was not practicable; we did not want to divulge; it was a matter that had to be kept private, and we were unable to consult them." I must say I am disappointed to hear that this is the interpretation that the noble Lord puts upon it. I thought it was much more limited, that it was merely to make the wheels run smoothly; and anything that will help to make the Bill run smoothly, of course, the county councils are as anxious as any one else to agree to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rather share with my noble friend who has just sat down the feeling that the words in this Amendment are dangerously wide. It is quite clear that the Board of Agriculture might ignore the county council altogether. I do not mean to say that there would be any malice on the part of the Board, but, of course, all of us have a very different opinion as to the precise value of the word "practicable." In some people's minds a thing might be deemed to be impracticable which is only a very little difficult, and in the opinion of others it might have a much more restricted meaning. I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Clinton, and it seems to me that if he desires to prevent loss of time because the county council itself cannot be consulted, he could easily frame words authorising some other body to act on behalf of the county council.
LORD CLINTON: That is coming in a later Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "A committee" or "persons authorised by them" would be the sort of words which would prevent any difficulty.
LORD CLINTON: It is on the Paper.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: "Or with a committee of that council"—it is on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If that is so, then it seems to be sufficient, and I do not understand why the noble Lord wishes to put in the word "practicable." Doubtful words of that sort are very objectionable in an Act of Parliament. It does not follow that the present Board of Agriculture will always be there. They may change at any moment, and we might have a representative of the Board of Agriculture who would wish to interpret the word "practicable" in a manner which would sweep away the whole of the safeguard which Lord Lichfield in Committee succeeded in persuading your Lordships to insert in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope that it is not so serious as Lord Salisbury indicates. I dare say there may be some little difficulty of interpretation—there often is when you use the word "reasonable" or "practicable" or anything of that kind in an Act of Parliament. But I think my noble friend, so far as he is concerned, and the present President of the Board of Agriculture, have every desire to take county councils into consultation, and probably their successors would take the same view. It is so much to their interest to do so. But Lord Lichfield desires to leave out this qualification altogether. The results might be very serious. We have to think not merely of the county council and of the Department; we have also to think of the man who wishes to sell the land; and if the man who wishes to sell the land knows—as, if you omit these words, he will know—that there may have to be a delay of a week, or two weeks, or a month, before any purchase could, be made or any undertaking given, and that when that consultation takes place the complete publicity will follow which is necessary, then it may be very difficult to get that man to sell the land. I think in the interests of acquiring land it is as well that this Amendment, together with the consequential Amendment "or a committee thereof," shall be put in.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not a consequential Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I mean a following Amendment
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; that is very different.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: To the plain man "where such consultation is practicable" represents what we all understand. It is a mandatory thing, subject to these few words.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think it would be very unfortunate if there were a difference of opinion between the Government and those who represent the county councils, where I believe there is equality of intention. Like my noble friend who has just sat down, I have some experience of the caution of Government draftsmen, and this phrase is very characteristic of their caution; they are always thinking of possible difficulties, which they want to avoid in advance. I honestly do not think that these words are worth the suspicion they will engender, and I think that the whole purpose of the Government may be surmounted by a little change of the words they propose to put in presently. They propose to insert the words "or with a committee of that council," and my noble friend does not object to that, I think.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I have put the words down myself.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: So that the words would run "after consultation with the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, or with a committee of that council." Now the council meets only once a quarter, which is obviously inconvenient. The committee probably meets at least once a month; but my noble friend Lord Crawford suggests that even this period may be inconveniently long on certain occasions which he could foresee. What really would satisfy the whole needs of the case would be if the communication were made to the chairman of the small holdings committee or to the chairman of the county council. That is the sense in which, I think, my noble friend (Lord Lichfield) means the county council or the committee of the county council. My noble friend does not contradict me. Therefore, if it would remove my noble friend's objection, speaking for myself—and I do not think I shall be repudiated by my noble friends opposite—I would accept words to this effect, "the chairman of the county council or the chairman of the small holdings committee of the county council."
LORD CLINTON: Consultation with the chairman of the county council?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, or of the small holdings committees; whichever you prefer. There could then be no possible delay, because all that the Board of Agriculture would have to do would be to communicate privately with this gentleman, who is, of course, one of the most trusted men in the county, and who would on the proper occasion consult his colleagues, but whose discretion could be completely relied upon.
LORD CLINTON: I have no objection to the suggestion of the noble Earl, which I think meets my case. He and other noble Lords opposite have been arguing this almost all the time on the question of delay, and have thought that "a committee of the council" would meet the point I have raised. As a matter of fact, it really would not meet it. Although there is importance in acting promptly, there is frequently an almost greater importance in carrying out the wishes of the vendor in keeping the matter absolutely private and secret. That is one reason why sometimes it is not possible to go before a committee. But if, instead of "where practicable" with the committee, words "with the chairman of the council" were inserted, what I think should be safeguarded would certainly be safeguarded.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If my noble friend does not press the Amendment, I will move to insert after "consultation with the council of the county" the words "or with the chairman of the county council."
LORD CLINTON: As a matter of fact, I believe it is out of order to move an Amendment on Report without notice.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, that is so; you must give notice.
LORD CLINTON: But perhaps it would be useful to discuss it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, it is not necessary to give notice; it is only on Third Reading that you require to do so.
LORD CLINTON: What were the actual words suggested by the noble Earl? Would the words "or, if not practicable, with the
774
chairman of the council "suit the noble Earl?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Would my noble friend (Lord Lichfield) be content if we put after "consultation" the words "with the chairman of the county council"?
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: Certainly.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then I will put it in this form, after "with" insert "the chairman of."
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: Instead of "with the council"?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved.
Page 2, line 8, after the word ("with") insert ("the chairman of").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD STRACHIE: I think I ought to say on this, though I was not in the House when the Amendment was moved by Lord Clinton, that this morning at a meeting of the Small Holdings Committee of the County Councils Association they approved of the Amendment standing in the noble Lords' name "where such consultation is practicable"; and, as far as I gather, they have no wish that the chairman should be consulted.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Lord should have told us that before.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment to which Lord Strachie refers has been withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My noble friend (Lord Lichfield), I know, is thoroughly well qualified to speak for the County Councils Association, and if he says that he is satisfied that county councils generally will agree to have the chairman of the council substituted for the council or the committee, as proposed in the Amendment, I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is the simplest course to take. I confess it comes to me rather as a surprise. I should have thought that

775
the words "or a committee" would have been useful, but I am not myself a member of the County Councils Association, or, indeed, of a county council at this moment I am certain, however, that my noble friend knows what it is safe to accept.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I have no authority whatever to speak for the county councils on this particular question as to the insertion of the chairman of the county council instead of the council. I can speak only of what I think would be likely to be satisfactory. But I cannot see that there is any possible objection to the chairman; he is the official representative of the county council, and to communicate with him is the quickest way to get the information to the council. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Strachie has to say about it, but I cannot see that there can be any objection. I should think it would be as well if the words "or the committee thereof" were also inserted so as to give an alternative. All we want is to make the Bill work as smoothly and as successfully as possible; but when the noble Lord mentioned why he wished to put in the words "where such consultation was practicable" I was bound to say, after the view he expressed, that I rather looked upon them with suspicion. I am sorry there should be difference of opinion about it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to add, at the end of the clause, the words "or with a committee of that council."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, at end insert ("or with a committee of that council").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: When do the Government propose to put down the Third Reading?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It will be put down for Tuesday. There is not very much time, and I think it is well that we should at any rate begin it on that day.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Are you going to give notice of Amendments?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There will probably have to be an adaptation clause for Scotland.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (VISCOUNT FARQUHAR)THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (VISCOUNT FARQUHAR) read the following Message from the King—
"I return you my most sincere thanks for your loyal and dutiful Address. The Queen and I have been deeply touched by the many manifestations of loyalty and affection which have reached us on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of our wedding, and we are much gratified by the warmth of feeling with which you associate yourselves with them."

PRODUCTION OF CEREALS.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Ministry of Production of Food have been able to arrive at any approximate estimate of the increased production of cereals which may be expected from the coming harvest; of the acreage which has been sown with wheat, barley, and oats respectively; and of the yield per acre of each cereal which they can reasonably anticipate, given a fair average season.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have to intrude once more, I am sorry to say, and ask this further Question, and although I am perfectly well aware, as the noble Lord said the other night, with regard to one part of my Question, that the threshing machine, after all, can be the only real arbiter, yet I have put this down on the Paper because, after the announcement which was made in public of the large additional number of acres that have been ploughed up, I am afraid that the exaggerated ideas of what the real increased production of food is to be may possibly be somewhat disappointed, for so many people appear to think that you have only to plough up a large number of acres to ensure a very large increase of food. I ask this Question for that reason. I have seen statements to the effect that the result of this harvest would be to enable us to feed 40,000,000 of our people, and I am very much afraid that when we arrive at the harvest and threshing has taken place there may be some disappointment in the matter. The Board of Agriculture, with its numerous inspectors all over the country, is in possession of the best information as to crops, and if the noble Lord is able to give us the information

777
which the Board of Agriculture possesses as to the prospects, I shall be glad if he will do so.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow me, I should like to answer the second and third parts of his Question first, because I have not got the information which will enable me to answer the first part of his Question, but we can make perhaps some estimate. The noble Viscount asks for the acreage which has been sown. Does he mean the increased acreage?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Yes.
LORD CLINTON: The increased acreage over 1916 of wheat is 752,000 acres.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Is that for the United Kingdom?
LORD CLINTON: It is for England and Wales. Of barley 158,000 acres, and of oats 735,000 acres. The next question is as to the estimated yield per acre of each cereal which we can reasonably anticipate, given a fair average season. The only information which I can supply to the noble Viscount is this, that given a fair average season there is no reason to believe that taking the country as a whole the yield of the cereal crops will be less than the average yield of the country during the last ten years—viz.: wheat, 32 bushels; barley, 33 bushels; and oats, 40 bushels. In view of the recent drought, however, it is possible that the yield in the case of oats and barley may prove to be slightly below the average. That is the only estimate I can give the noble Viscount. I have not got the figures, but, obviously, if it was worth one's while to multiply that yield per acre by the increased acreage, one would arrive at the increased quantity of production.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

LAND DRAINAGE 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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Procedure for the making of Orders.
(2) A petition for an order may be presented, in the case of a proposal for the definition of the limits of a commission of sewers, by the commission, and in the case of a proposal to alter or supplement a local Act conferring powers on a drainage authority, by that authority, or by the council of any administrative county or county borough in which any part of the drainage area of that authority is situate, and in other cases by—

(a) the proprietors of one-tenth of the area proposed to be constituted a separate drainage district, or of the area proposed to be added to or excluded from a drainage district; or

(b) the drainage authority of a drainage area proposed to be altered; or

(c) the council of any administrative county or county borough in which any part of the land proposed to be affected by the order is situate.

LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to delete the word "district" from subsection (2) (a). where that word secondly occurs, and to substitute "area." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The word "area" is used in the rest of the measure.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("district") and insert ("area").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Provisions as to rating.
4.—(1) The powers of a commission of sewers or of a drainage board constituted under the principal Act or this Act shall include, and shall be deemed always to have included, powers of levying drainage rates on the basis of acreage or on the basis of annual value of the lands liable to be rated.
(2) An order made under this Act may provide for differential rating of part of any drainage district (whether constituted under the principal Act or this Act), or any area within the limits of a commission of sewers, and for total or partial exemption of buildings, railways, canals, inland navigations or any other special class of land within the district or area.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to omit from the end of subsection (1) the

779
words "liable to be rated," and to substitute "previously liable to be rated for drainage purposes." The noble Earl said: I placed this Amendment on the Paper in order to raise a point about which I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill. I must apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that unfortunately, owing to the short time available, I have not been able to obtain accurate information on the subject. I do not know whether the noble Lord understands the actual point of the Amendment, but if the words which I propose are inserted it would read—
"or on the basis of the land previously liable to be rated for drainage purposes."
I have not been able to get absolute information of the state of affairs as regards the levying of rates in the marsh lands of Lincolnshire for the purposes of coast defence. As I remarked on the Second Reading, I have a distinct recollection that when I had the honour to represent a constituency in that part of the country there always was a grievance that certain lands which were liable to be flooded should the sea break in were not liable to pay rates. I asked two solicitors whether the words as they stand in the Bill would mean that the land was liable to be rated for drainage purposes or coast defence purposes, or whether they meant liable for poor rate, and it seems to me it ought to be made clear. If there are certain lands which are not liable to be rated for drainage purposes, I think the words might be misinterpreted. They might be interpreted to mean that the land is liable for poor rates. I do not mind which way it reads, but I think it should be made clear in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42 after ("lands") insert ("previously "), and after ("rated") insert ("for drainage purposes ").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD CLINTON: I did not understand the noble Earl's point when I saw the Amendment down, and I would suggest to him that, although the point has been put before us now, this probably is not the right clause on which to remove the doubt which he suggests exists. This clause is to remove quite another doubt, and only for the purpose of removing that doubt. There has been the question raised for a very long time as to whether the Commissioners of Sewers had a legal power to rate either on acreage or on annual value.
780
The whole object of this clause is to remove that doubt. It has nothing to do with anything except drainage purposes.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Powers of local authorities to contribute to drainage expenses.
5. Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board that the execution or maintenance of any drainage works is desirable in the interests of the public health of any area, or for the protection or better enjoyment of any highways, the Board may authorise the local authority of the district for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1875, in which the area to be benefited is situated, or the highway authority, as the case may be, to contribute or undertake to contribute to the expenses of the execution or maintenance of the drainage works by a drainage authority, such an amount as the Board, having regard to the public benefit derived therefrom, may sanction and may direct how and out of what fund or rate such contributions may be defrayed.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD THE EARL OF LICHFIELD moved to delete from the end of the clause the words "and may direct how and out of what fund or rate such contributions may be defrayed," and to substitute other words. The noble Earl said: It would seem from the wording of the clause that it applies only to the case of drainage authorities. There is no provision for any works being carried out where a drainage authority does not exist, and, as far as is known, there is no public authority which can spend money on works, often of a minor character, which are necessary or most desirable in the interests of public health, the preservation of high roads, the widening and straightening of water courses, and the clearing out of ditches. Where streams do not immediately join the highway, neither the district council nor the parish council seem to have any such powers. I can conceive instances where it would be important that the powers which I seek under this Amendment should be obtained, but I will not trouble you with them, because it is apparent that there is some necessity for an Amendment of this sort, which I hope the Government will see their way to meet. The words which I propose to substitute are "or if the drainage works are not situated within a drainage area, the Board may authorise the local authority or the highway authority, as the case may be,

781
to undertake the drainage works themselves." I hope that my noble friend may give this his favourable consideration. I should like to say that the Board of Agriculture have met the county councils most fully all through the Bill which is now before your Lordships, In the House of Commons Amendments were put in which were perfectly satisfactory to the county councils, and I have to thank the Board of Agriculture for either introducing them or agreeing to them. This is a small matter, and, of course, I am in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. I trust they will be able to see their way to meet this want, which in some districts is a matter of considerable importance to the inhabitants.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out from ("sanction") to the end of the clause and insert ("or if the drainage works are not situated within a drainage area, the Board may authorise the local authority or the highway authority, as the case may be, to undertake the drainage works themselves").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will be able to answer my noble friend sympathetically in respect of this Amendment. If this Bill was a final settlement of the drainage question and covered the whole country, with an authority everywhere responsible for these matters, this point could not have arisen. For instance, if the county council was everywhere constituted the drainage authority in default of a special drainage board the question would have been met, but, as I understand it, the case is this—that we have a small country town liable to recurrent floods very detrimental to health; if that town happens to be within a drainage area, then under Clause 6 as drafted the evil could be dealt with, but if there is no such drainage area there is no authority in existence, or constituted by this Bill, that would be able to deal with that particular local evil. My noble friend's Amendment would in such cases give the local authority power to deal with it, and in default of any arguments from my noble friend in charge of the Bill it seems to be not only an innocuous but an extremely valuable Amendment.
LORD CLINTON: I am sorry to be apparently in opposition to the county councils again. I recognise that this is a very valuable proposal, but I rather
782
gather from the speech of the noble Earl, and distinctly from his Amendment, that this is not a land drainage purpose. It is for the purpose of protecting the highways.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Or public health—local authority or highway authority.
LORD CLINTON: It is for the purpose of highways or public health. I do not think there is any provision in this Bill that you should be empowered to drain for such a purpose. That must be done under the Public Health Act, or in some other way. This particular clause with which we are dealing enables a body, like a public health authority or the highway authority, to contribute towards the expenses of such a thing being done. In addition, this is a clause which has nothing to do with powers. It has only to do with expenses, and I do not think it would be suitable to put into it any new set of powers. That is the real objection to the Amendment. I recognise the great advantage there would be of getting it done, but I am inclined to think it cannot be done in this way and under this clause, and as it is not for land drainage it would be very difficult to do it within the four corners of the Bill. Probably the right course would be, if the district proposed to be drained is too small for a drainage area, that the highway authority should persuade the Board to act under the powers which it retains for itself under Clause 16.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I should not wish to press the Amendment after what he has said, especially as it does not come within the four corners of the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With great deference to my noble friend's advisers, I should have doubted whether this Bill could be said exclusively to deal with drainage from an agricultural point of view, considering the extent to which it refers to the existing Acts, and the fact that they cover a very much wider ground than mere agricultural drainage. I very much doubt if that contention could be maintained, and I would ask the noble Lord, between this and the Report stage, to look more closely into the Amendment. I think he understands its purport and

783
recognises its legitimate and necessary purpose. We shall be much obliged if he will look further into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Power to enter into arrangements with navigation authorities.
7.—(1) A drainage authority and a navigation authority may, if authorised in that behalf by an order made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries after consultation with the Board of Trade, and, if opposed, confirmed by Parliament, in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act, enter into arrangements for—

(a) the transfer to the drainage authority of the whole or any part of the undertaking, powers, duties, and obligations of the navigation authority with a view to improving the drainage area of the drainage authority; or

(b) the alteration or management of the works or undertaking of the navigation authority or any parts thereof with a view to improving the drainage of the drainage area of the drainage authority; or

(c) payment by any party to any such arrangement to the other party as the consideration for any matter or subject to which the arrangement relates.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prejudicing or affecting any powers of entering into such arrangements which any such authorities may possess independently of this section.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved the insertion of a new subsection. The noble Lord said: This new subsection is to meet a suggestion of the Postmaster-General. It is understood that certain communications are going on between the Postmaster-General and the navigation authority, and these words are required by him.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, after line 7, insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Notice of the intention to make an Order under this section shall be given to the Postmaster-General."—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Definitions.
13. For the purposes of this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "drainage authority" means any commission of sewers, any drainage board constituted under the principal Act or this Act, and any body of persons authorised by any local Act or any award made under any such Act to make or maintain works for the drainage of land; and the expression "drainage area" means the area within the limits of a commission of sewers, the district of such drainage board as aforesaid, and the area within the jurisdiction of such body of persons as aforesaid:
The expression "navigation authority" means any person or body of persons having powers under any Act of Parliament to work or maintain a canal or other inland navigation.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to omit the definition of "navigation authority." The noble Lord said: I wish to omit this paragraph from this clause and to insert it in Part III of the Bill. This is a general interpretation, whilst this clause deals only with the interpretation of this particular part of the Bill—
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 20 to 22 inclusive.—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Powers of Board to enforce performance of duties.
15.—(1) For the purpose of enforcing in relation to agricultural land any liability to repair which is enforceable under section fifteen of the Sewers Act, 1833, any officer appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may exercise on behalf of the Board the powers conferred by that section on an officer appointed by a Court of Sewers.
(2) Where, in the opinion of the Board, any agricultural land is injured or likely to be injured by flooding or inadequate drainage which might be remedied wholly or partially by the exercise of drainage powers which are conferred by any general or local Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, or by any award made under any Act, or by any commission of sewers, and which are not being exercised or, in the opinion of the Board, are being insufficiently exercised, the Board may exercise any such power and also any power conferred by any such Act, order, award, or commission for defraying the expenses so incurred or for any purpose incidental to the exercise of any such power: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to powers conferred upon any railway or canal company for the purposes of their undertaking.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to leave out "or canal company" at the end of the clause, and to insert "company or navigation authority." The noble Lord said: This is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("or canal company") and insert ("company or navigation authority ").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Schemes for drainage of small areas.
16.—(1) Where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are of opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works, but that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an order under Part I of this Act, and that, the expenses of executing and maintaining such works will not exceed the increase in the value of the land arising therefrom, the Board may, in accordance with the provis1ms of a scheme made under this section, enter on the lands and execute such drainage works as appear to them desirable.
(2) Before executing any works under this section the Board shall prepare a draft scheme stating:—

(a) the works proposed to be executed;

(b) the area to be improved thereby;

(c) the estimated cost of the execution of the works and the maximum amount to be recoverable by the Board in respect of the costs thereof;

(d) the manner in which the expenses of executing and maintaining the works are to be apportioned amongst the lands comprised in the area;

and shall give to the owners and occupiers of land comprised within the area, and to any navigation authority or other body or person appearing to the Board to be affected by the scheme, notice in the prescribed manner of the making of the draft scheme, and of the place where it earl be inspected and of the time within which objections to the scheme may be presented to the Board, and the Board shall, before settling the scheme, consider any objections which may have been duly made.
(3) Copies of the scheme when settled shall be served on the owners and occupiers of land in the area to which the scheme relates.
(4) For the purpose of executing any works under a scheme and maintaining the same the Board shall, within the area to which the scheme relates or in which the works are to be executed, have all the powers of a drainage board under the principal Act as amended by this Act, but subject to the restrictions thereby imposed on the exercise of such powers.
(5) Any expenses incurred by the Board under this section in the execution of drainage works to an amount not exceeding the amount declared by the scheme to be the maximum amount of expenses recoverable by them, or in maintaining any such works, shall be recoverable by the Board in a summary manner from the several owners of the lands to which the scheme relates according to the apportionment in the scheme:
Provided that if any owner so requires in writing the sum payable by him shall be recoverable by the Board by means of a rate to be made and levied by the Board in like manner, subject to the like provisions and with the like incidence, as are applicable in the case of a private improvement rate for private improvement expenses incurred by a local authority under the Public Health Act, 1875, with this qualification, that the Board shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of any land subject to the rate, determine the proportion of the rate to be borne by them respectively, having regard to the benefit derived from the works, the contract of tenancy, and all other circumstances of the case, but the local authority may on the application of the Board collect the rate and pay over the proceeds to the Board after deducting such reasonable costs of collection as may be agreed with the Board, or, in default of agreement, settled by the Local Government Board.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER Moved, after "Where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are of opinion that any," at the beginning of the clause, to insert "small area of." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which raises a very important point. The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said the whole of Clause 16 referred to the drainage of small areas, and up to a certain point he appeared to be quite correct, because in the margin of the Bill the words "Schemes for drainage of small areas" are placed. Anybody who peruses Clause 16 from start to finish will not see the word "small" appear anywhere at all in the text of the clause, and my Amendment is for the purpose of inserting the words "small area of" before "agricultural land." I am informed, I believe correctly, that what is stated in the margin of a Bill has no force whatever in law. It is merely a matter of convenience for reference, but when it comes to the interpretation of the law nobody pays any attention to what is stated in the margin of a Bill. Therefore by leaving out the words "small areas" the whole of this clause is completely altered.
Those who are well acquainted with the Bill will be aware that according to Part I, when there is any scheme for drainage proposed, there are a great many formulas to be gone through. The parties interested have an opportunity of objecting, there are questions as to Provisional Orders, and the Regulations set out in the First Schedule of the Bill with regard to the procedure for making Orders, and if there is opposition there eventually has to be a Bill in Parliament. Under Part I any extensive scheme of drainage which will cost a good deal of

787
money has to go through these forms, and all the parties interested have an opportunity of being heard.
Then, when we get to Clause 16, merely by a little note in the margin we deal with small areas. As regards these small areas, no such procedure has to be gone through. The Board of Agriculture in this part of the Bill are just as omnipotent as they are to-day under the Defence of the Realm Regulations acting through the war agricultural committees. They can hear the party who objects to what the Board are about to do either by themselves or through their agents, but if the Board disagrees with the objections, the parties have to grin and bear it, and the Board of Agriculture step in and carry out such works as they think necessary, and then charge the owner or owners with the cost of the works carried out. It seems to me, for the protection of everybody and in the interests of the Bill itself, that it is most important that words should be placed somewhere in this clause definitely to show that this procedure—direct procedure by the Board of Agriculture—refers only to small areas, because by a side wind all the other difficulties which should be gone through under Part I of the Bill can be omitted altogether, and the Board of Agriculture can act as they like. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see his way to place something in the clause to show that it refers only to small areas.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, after ("any") insert ("small area of ").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to say a word or two upon this Amendment. The real amendment of my noble friend is not the one he has just moved; it is the consequential one which appears immediately after it. I very much doubt whether the words "small area" are capable of definition. It is a minor point. The real point which my noble friend has raised, I think most legitimately, is as to whether there is to be an appeal in a case where an individual landowner does not agree with the Board of Agriculture in thinking that the matter is really going to be an improvement in the sense of paying its way.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but I
788
particularly did not speak on the question which is raised later, and which the noble Earl says is consequential. I do not think it is quite consequential. If we deal with the question first as to whether "small area" should be placed in the text of the Bill instead of the margin, it would be best. It would be for the Courts to decide upon the interpretation of the word "small." I would prefer the question raised by my other Amendment to be dealt with in a moment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am quite ready to fall in with my noble friend's wish, and to discuss the question of small areas first.
LORD CLINTON: The noble Earl is no doubt quite right in suggesting that in the margin of the Bill the words have no importance, but I think he has been answered to a great extent by the noble Earl (Lord Selborne), for I do not think he can himself suggest what the word "small" would mean if it was in the text of the Bill. There is no definition of "small"; it is a purely relative term. For that reason it is not put in the Bill. I am informed that the noble Earl's idea is sufficiently covered by the words which follow—
"that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an Order under Part I."
I am told that this is a sufficient carrying out of the marginal reference to small drainage areas.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I must say that the answer of my noble friend is most unsatisfactory. It really looks as if this were a side wind to get in other matters. There can be no objection to having "small" in the text, except that it is somewhat doubtful as to how it may be interpreted. It seems to me that there is some ulterior object behind the proposal to get round the restrictions put in Part I of the Bill, and I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope that the noble Duke will not instigate my noble friend Lord Ancaster to press his Amendment. There is no ulterior motive. The objection to putting in the word "small" is that we should be inserting a word which is meaningless.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Why put it in the margin?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Every one knows that there is a distinction between a marginal note and the text of a Statute. There really is no ulterior motive. If it is put into the Statute it is bound to lead to litigation. Neither of my noble friends opposite is a lawyer. If it had come from other quarters I could have understood it, but I do not understand it coming from them, for it is bound to lead to litigation. The words quoted by my noble friend which follow later on surely meet the point, because they reduce it to legal terminology, a condition of things which both the noble Lords opposite wish to see.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Might I appeal to the Lord Chancellor to help us in this matter, which is one very largely of legal interpretation. Would he be good enough to look at the Amendment and at the clause and advise us what the effect would be either of putting in the Amendment or of its omission? We should then know better than we do at present how to act.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: May I be permitted to say one word before the noble and learned Lord replies? I should like to ask why putting in the word "small" would lead to litigation any more than putting in the other words—"that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an Order under Part I of this Act." At all events, if you have the word "small" put in, the parties aggrieved, if they think the Government through the Board of Agriculture are acting in a high-handed way, can go to the Courts and the Courts can say whether the scheme is small, in the same way that they may have to go to the Courts in order to prove that this part of the Bill "cannot be conveniently dealt with under Part I of this Act." It appears to me that this phrase is just as likely to lead to litigation as the other.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: May I suggest that possibly these difficulties might be overcome if after "that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with" the words were inserted "owing to the size of the area, by an Order under Part I of this Act."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that great difficulty would
790
arise if the word "small" were introduced into the section. It is quite undefined, and I am sure that the section would be the despair of all Judges if the word "small" were inserted. The noble Earl has pointed out that the words "that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an Order" are rather vague, but I would suggest that that is cured by the words which really govern the earlier part of the clause—
"Where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are of opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works, but that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an Order under Part I of this Act."
That is a matter for the discretion of a body familiar with such business, and they are capable of making up their minds whether it can be conveniently dealt with. I understand that size will probably be the predominant factor in determining whether it can be conveniently dealt with, but I think that it would be a little rash to put in words restricting the exercise of their discretion to that one factor. And there may be others—at all events, I am not prepared to say that there may not be others—and I certainly would suggest that the word "small" does no harm in the marginal note, which is not part of the Act; in fact, it does good rather, because it calls attention to what will probably result from the application of the discretion entrusted to the Board of Agriculture in the earlier part of the clause. It would be a mistake to bring the word "small" into the body of the clause.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think what my noble friend wants to be reassured about is this, that the clause may not be used where really Part I ought to be used.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is the matter which my noble friend feels anxiety about. I would suggest that it is a point worthy of the attention of the Government. I do not expect that they can meet it here and now, but if they would undertake to consider the argument between this stage and Report, I would suggest to my noble friend that he need not press this particular Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am told that this matter has been very maturely

791
considered, and that it was thought best to guard it as it is guarded by leaving the discretion to the Board. They are to determine it, and the factors to govern their determination are indicated in the clause. I cannot say more at present than that I think there would be very great difficulty in going further than the framers of the clause have gone already in securing that it would be used only in the class of cases for which undoubtedly it was intended.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved the addition of a proviso at the end of subsection (2). The noble Earl said: As the Government have not considered it right to insert any words in any way limiting the area over which the Board of Agriculture can order drainage works to be carried out, my next Amendment has all the greater importance. It practically grants to the owner or owners whose land is to be drained under Orders of the Board of Agriculture the right of an appeal to an independent person—the same appeal as is granted under the Corn Production Bill which we were disucssing at great length last night.
I will not weary your Lordships with a long discourse on the merits or demerits of different forms of arbitration, but as the Bill stands at present the Board of Agriculture over a very considerable area of land, perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 or perhaps 10,000 acres, for all we know, may give orders that this land is to be drained. If the owner or owners say that they do not think it would be a paying concern, and that in future years the owner or owners will be heavy losers—say the price of corn falls—the Board of Agriculture are to be practically the sole arbiters. I have another Amendment in which I attempt to limit the powers of the Board of Agriculture as regards all the more expensive parts of drainage. It would, I think, have been far better had the Government simply embodied in the Bill the powers which are possessed by the war agricultural committees under the Defence of the Realm Regulations as regards drainage. There the war agricultural committees, acting as the agents of the Board of Agriculture, can step in to make people clean out their dykes and river beds and the existing water courses, so that the flood water may be drained away as speedily as possible. With that I absolutely agree. I think it
792
is most important that somebody like the Board of Agriculture should act most firmly in this matter and I believe that is one of the chief points in this Bill which my noble friend Lord Selborne is most in favour of.
But when it comes to carrying out some extensive drainage operations over a considerable area of land, I maintain that there ought to be some appeal against the Board of Agriculture. It is all very well in these days, when wheat and barley and oats are all fetching remunerative prices, for the noble Lord representing the Board of Agriculture to say that now these high prices are encouraging the production of corn, and that it is therefore, in the interests of corn production, most important that land should be drained. I quite agree with him. But I should like to tell him, first of all, that there is very little haste in the matter, because, as regards growing corn in the next year on this undrained land, it is very hypothetical. I have tried it myself, and I know the difficulty of obtaining labour even for cleaning out ditches, let alone for drainage works, and in addition to that there is the difficulty of obtaining drain pipes and the difficulty of obtaining a pumping engine. I can assure the noble Lord that it is a great many months before works on any extensive scale can be begun at all.
If we act in a great hurry in this matter we may fall into the same error that was committed thirty or forty years ago under the Lands Improvements Act. I do not believe there is a single member of your Lordships' House who will not entirely endorse what I say about this. In that period, when agriculture was a drooping industry and corn growing was ceasing to pay, the great remedy that was to cure all this was land drainage, and there were numbers of estates throughout the length and breadth of the country that were absolutely ruined, and mortgages placed upon them, by putting in drain pipes which have never been of any use since. Plenty of estates have never recovered from the mortgages placed on them through this useless draining.
I am very much afraid that unless there is an appeal to some independent person the present owners may be forced to carry out drainage schemes which apparently this year, next year, and for the next two or three years may be a paying proposition, but which in the long run cannot make a

793
proper return for the money expended. I therefore think it is most important, considering the area over which the Board of Agriculture will now have power to act, that owners should have some appeal to an impartial tribunal. At the present moment all the powers under Part I of the Act are not given to the owners, and the only body whom they have to appeal to is the Board of Agriculture—the very people who order the landowner to carry out this work.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, at end insert ("Provided that if any owner is dissatisfied with the finding of the Board on the ground that the value of his land would not be increased by an amount equal to the cost of the proposed expenditure, he may, by giving notice in writing to the Board within such time as may be prescribed by general regulations to be made by the Board under this Act, require the matter to be referred to an arbitrator appointed as under section eleven, subsection (1), of the Corn Production Act, 1917, whose decision shall be final ").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: On the principle of this Amendment I am in most hearty agreement with my noble friend. In principle it is only right that there should be an appeal by the individual landowner against the opinion of the Board of Agriculture as to whether, as a matter of fact, the drainage operation proposed is likely to be a paying transaction. It is very hard for the individual landowner if the Board of Agriculture makes a mistake and the land is not improved by the process of draining so as to bring in a return equal to the cost to the landowner of that draining, Therefore I think there ought to be an appeal. It would greatly facilitate the working of the Act by removing any possible sense of injustice, and I believe that the tribunal my noble friend has chosen is the right one.
But I put it to him whether his words really cover the whole case. It is a rather complicated matter. If the question is between one landowner or two or three landowners whose lands are going to be improved, and the Board of Agriculture, the Amendment is adequate. But this is a case with which my friend is familiar, I think, and which is certain to arise. He has, say, a farm or an estate which would be greatly improved by drainage, and he wants to see it so improved; therefore he is favourable to the action of the Board of Agriculture which may take place under this clause. But the way out for his drain-
794
age may be through my land, and my land may not be improved by the operation. Now, on the one hand, it is rather hard on me that I should have to pay for a process which is not going to be remunerative to me; yet on the other hand it is harder still for my noble friend to have his land waterlogged because I will in no way facilitate the drainage works that are necessary to his land. That is what I mean when I say that the matter is rather more complicated, as I see it, than would appear by reading my noble friend's Amendment.
The Amendment provides absolutely for the case of the individual landowner and the Board of Agriculture; but if these words are put in, I think he is bound on Report to bring up additional words to meet the further case; for I certainly hold that it is the business of the Bard of Agriculture to see that drainable land does not remain undrained because somebody else will not give facility for the outfall of the water. I put that case to my noble friend, and I hope that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will deal with it in the reply he is going to make. If the Amendment is not accepted and my noble friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly vote with him, but I should do so only on the understanding that this point was going to be met at a further stage.
LORD CLINTON: I will deal with this last point first of all. I am glad to see that the noble Earl recognises the great importance of this clause; but he has expressed a fear that a down-stream owner who may be blocking up a drainage area and whose land may come out of that area may yet have to pay a heavy rate even though his land is not improved at all. I think that was the point. That is dealt with, I believe, or it was intended to be dealt with, in subsection (5) where the Board recover the expenses according to the apportionment in the scheme. I take it that in view of an earlier clause, where lands are rated relatively to the value they receive, that must be the intention; that if this or any one particular owner, although he is inside the area, does not benefit, I imagine he also does not pay the rate. But I will have that looked up before the next stage and make certain, although I have very little doubt that this is so.
I come now to the main question of appeal. The noble Earl asked for the same appeal to be put in as is in the Corn

795
Production Act. But there is a very great difference between these cases. In the Corn Production Act you refer to a practical man for his decision on questions of fact—the question whether a farm has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; whether certain land should be ploughed up; and various questions of that kind, which a man who knows his work can settle. Here we are going into a different kind of thing altogether, to a case where a man has to estimate whether an improvement which you execute now is going to benefit your estate X years hence—at some time or another. You must get the opinion of an expert witness for it. You may not be inclined to take the opinion of the expert appointed by the Board, but I cannot see that you are then in any better position by taking the opinion of some expert appointed by any other body. It is certain that it will lead to a very great cost. You will have fully-fledged arbitrations, with expert witnesses on both sides, and your arbitrator will be another expert. It is a very risky proceeding indeed to rely too much upon expert evidence of some future happening. The Board, of course, appoints its authority; it is responsible for having the scheme carried out; and I think that this opinion ought to be accepted, as I do not think you gain much by going any further and getting other expert authority. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CLINTON: I have an Amendment in the second half of the proviso to insert "and on behalf" after "application" This is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 25, after ("application") insert ("and on behalf").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The EARL of ANCASTER The EARL of ANCASTER moved to add the following proviso at the end of Clause 16: "Provided always that no scheme made under this section shall include works for the arterial drainage or for the erection of pumps in respect of the drainage of land within the scope of this section." The noble Earl said: I have given way on this clause on two occasions without a Division; therefore I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accept
796
this Amendment. It is always one of the difficulties in dealing with a Bill in Committee that you so often have to withdraw Amendments because the object for which they are moved is, perhaps, not apparent until the, end. What I have always been afraid of in this part of the clause is that the Board of Agriculture, either by themselves or acting through their agent, should order some owner or owners, under this part of the Bill, where they have no appeal except to the Board of Agriculture, to go in for very difficult and costly schemes of drainage.
I have no very grave objection to—in fact, as I said before, I welcome—any scheme by which the ordinary watercourses and the natural channels of drainage can be kept open and free to let the flood water away in the speediest manner. As I also said before, I should have preferred the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations as they exist at the present moment for the cleaning of ditches and water-courses, which are the natural drainage of the land, than Part II of this Bill. But the grave objection there is to this clause as it stands is that the Board of Agriculture may order an owner or owners not only to dig out the natural watercourses which already exist, but to dig new water-courses, and, in addition to that, to go into the extremely expensive matter of arterial drainage, and also, perhaps, of pumping.
The price of arterial drainage is certainly going after the war to be double what it was before the war, both in the matter of labour and cost of pipes, and after four, five, or six years the price of corn will very likely fall and everybody will say they had better go in for growing meat instead of corn, and the cost of pipes and laying them will probably be lost. Therefore, although I would have preferred the clause of the Defence of the Realm Act dealing with this question of drainage rather than Part II of the Bill, still I think it would meet many of the objections which landlords would have to the second Part of the Bill, and the somewhat arbitrary powers which are handed over to the Board of Agriculture, if their powers could be limited so that an enormous sum of money should not be placed upon the land practically as a renteharge in order to pay for the cost of arterial drainage. I therefore beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, at end insert ("Provided always that no scheme made under this section shall include works for the arterial drainage or for the erection of pumps in respect of the drainage of land within the scope of this section").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD CLINTON: I hope that the noble Earl is over-nervous as to the awful results of this clause. I consider it one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill, and I should be very sorry indeed if it could be used in any such way as the noble Earl suggests. With regard to the Amendment, it is, I think, rather a strong measure to say that you are not to use any machinery of any kind in these drainage works. After all, certain pumps are very inexpensive matters, and it might be necessary in order to carry out a scheme to use a pump, and I do not think you should prohibit it. Then, I do not know what is the noble Earl's definition of arterial drainage. He leads me to think that there is some definition making it apply to only very wide areas, but my definition is "any combined system of drainage in which you have one big cut into which other cuts flow." I think you could have a very small arterial system as well as a very large one.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Surely it means drainage with drain pipes.
LORD CLINTON: I have never used it in that sense, but, as I say, I have not looked the definition up, and the words of the Amendment are in my opinion rather dangerous words to put in when neither side understand what they mean. I think the whole of the trouble is still over our word "small."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, it is a question of the words "drain pipes."
LORD CLINTON: I mean that you want to limit the expense. Although I cannot accept the Amendment, I will endeavour before the next stage to see whether we cannot come to some arrangement which will put more of a limit upon the size of the scheme than there is at present.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Short title, and construction.
23.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Land Drainage Act, 1918.
(2) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act.
(3) In this Act the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the expression "drainage" includes defence against water.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved an addition at the end of subsection 3. The noble Lord said: This is the same provision as that which your Lordships took out of a previous clause because it happened to be placed in the wrong part of the Bill. It is really drafting, and merely an interpretation of certain words.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, after ("water") insert ("and the expression ' navigation authority' means any person or body of persons having powers under any Act of Parliament to work or maintain a canal or other inland navigation").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

THE PLOUGHING-UP ORDERS.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Ministry of Production of Food can give—

1. Any approximate estimate of the acreage ordered to be ploughed by war agricultural executive committees in England which has been ploughed prior to May 31, 1918, and which has not been planted.

2. Any approximate estimate of the acreage which has been ploughed and planted by order of war agricultural executive committees in England prior to May 31, 1918, and likely to yield less than 50 per cent. of a crop.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in asking this Question is very much the same as that of my noble friend Viscount Chaplin, who asked a Question on a similar subject this afternoon. A great many wild statements have been made, both optimistic and pessimistic, as to whether ploughing-up has been a failure

799
or a success. A great difference of opinion exists, and we have heard many suppositions. For instance, it is said that 1,000,000 out of 4,000,000 acres have been a failure, and I think it is unfortunate that no very trustworthy information on the subject is to be had. My noble friend Lord Chaplin, in his Question, asked for the jam part of it, and I think the noble Lord in giving his answer laid the jam on rather thick. I am asking for the powder, and I gather that the information at the disposal of the noble Lord is very meagre. I should have thought that with the numerous officials appointed by war executive committees, and with the Board of Agriculture's inspectors throughout the country, the Board would have been by this time in possession of fairly accurate information as to what has been the success and what has been the failure of this ploughing-up. I venture to think it is rather unfortunate that the information at their disposal seems to be so meagre. I will not detain your Lordships at this late hour, but if the noble Lord can give the information for which I ask it will be useful to your Lordships.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord has indicated, I am really not in a position to answer this question, except by giving certain estimates which have been made. I have given the full figures to the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, and I do not think the noble Lord would wish me to repeat them, but the reports generally are to the effect that the yield is likely to be up to the average.
LORD HINDLIP: I was not asking about the yield, but about the failures—the powder.
LORD CLINTON: I think the noble Lord must put his Question down again, for I have not the information at hand.
LORD HINDLIP: I will put it down again for next week.

CONSUMPTION OF FOODSTUFFS.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP (on behalf of LORD LAMINGTON) rose to ask His Majesty's Government for a comparative Return of the amounts of foodstuffs consumed in the
800
United Kingdom for the first six months of each year from 1914 to 1918 inclusive.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me to put this Question for him. I am afraid I know very little about it, but I gather that my noble friend wishes to learn what has been found to be the effect of the various Regulations, and whether there has been a reduction in the amount of food consumed in the years 1914 to 1918.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Lamington would have given me some reason why he asked for a Return which would cause an immense amount of trouble and labour to compile. He asks for the estimated consumption of all foodstuffs, home grown as well as imported, consumed in the United Kingdom for the first six months of each of the last five years. There are no official returns on that subject. It involves an analysis of the Customs figures for five successive half years, which have to be compiled themselves by taking out the first six months in each of the five years. You have to make estimates of consumption, taking into account home production, which in 1914 was not very clearly assessed; you have to make allowances for the amount caried into the half year and the amount carried over from the half year; elaborate allowances have to be made for imports and re-exports; and this has all got to be done on a monthly basis. Even if the figures existed I should have to ask that they should be treated as confidential, because, for very good reasons, it has been decided that we do not reveal to the enemy the amounts of foodstuffs which pass through our Customs. I should, therefore, desire my noble friend, if he will be so good as to do so, to convey to Lord Lamington that I am reluctant to place very heavy and severe duties upon the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade unless there is very good cause shown. I do not think it would help him, because it would show a marked diminution in certain articles of consumption and a marked increase in others, and it would bear no relation to any argument upon which any constructive policy or criticism could be based.
LORD HINDLIP: If I may be allowed to say so, the noble Earl has my entire sympathy. I will convey to my noble friend what he has said.

LOANS (INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 9.]
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 further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Belfast Harbour.
London United Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

SMITH ESTATE. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163A relating to Private Bills, he had, on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees, appointed William Howard Winter-
802
botham, Esquire, of the Royal Courts of Justice, Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court of Judicature, as guardian or protector of the infants, Arthur Maryon Graham Wanklyn, Gwendoline May Wanklyn and Cynthia Streatfeild, named in the Bill, to represent such infants before the Committee on the Bill.

LONDONDERRY CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LAND DRAINAGE (PINCHBECK) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  LAND DRAINAGE (WOODWALTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

SMITH ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Committed for Tuesday next.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.