CORN PRODUCTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 11 July 1918 vol 30 cc803-39

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:

Amendment of 7 & 8 Geo. 5, c. 46, s. 11 (3).

1. For subsection (3) of section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917, the following sub-section shall be substituted:— (3) This Part of this Act shall come into operation on the termination of the present war.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OE AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON) moved to omit all words after "This Part of this Act shall," and to insert other words. The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I have put on the Paper is intended to be, and I hope is, an exact compliance with the promise I made to your Lordships one or two nights ago. I am not quite certain that the House fully realised the effect that the passing of this Amendment would have upon corn production. I did not fully realise the effect myself, but, as I specifically made certain promises, I have, of course, translated them into an Amendment.

The main reason given during that discussion why an appeal should be granted was in connection with the changes in methods of cultivation. There was, I think, certainly a good reason for admitting the principle of an appeal in those cases, because we were compelling occupants to adopt methods of cultivation which were new and upon the wisdom of which there might be differences of opinion. But the effect of allowing an appeal in all cases covers some things which are by no means new. It allows tenants to appeal against Orders instructing them to carry out the most ordinary methods of cultivation, which they are bound to do in most cases under their leases, and which, at all events, they are bound to do under the rules of good husbandry. Under the terms of the Amendment they could appeal from an Order to cut thistles, to clean land, or any of the most minor operations, and it is quite obvious that the length of time which an appeal would occupy would probably allow the nuisance to continue unabated, and, even though the appellant was unsuccessful, the damage would really have been completed before the result of the appeal was known. I want your Lord-ships to realise that such things would commonly happen if the Amendment standing in my name is passed.

Your Lordships have had before you for a generation a very large number of measures affecting the relationship between landlord and tenant and affecting the proper cultivation of land, and it has been said over and over again by numbers of your Lordships that they do not want to dc anything to protect the bad tenant, but they want to safeguard the good tenant; we are also agreed that the bad tenant should, if possible, be compelled to become a good tenant. This measure will affect only the bad tenant; it is only the bad tenant who will be coerced by Regulations. I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is right to give the admittedly bad tenant the right of appeal against an Order which is necessary for the production of food during time of war.

I appeal to your Lordships in this matter, and I should like to call in aid particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin. He has all his life been an exponent of increased production, and we recognise the great success which his efforts have achieved. I submit to him that if you pass the Amendment which I am now proposing you will enable the bad tenant to appeal in any case against an Order to clean his land, against an Order to bring it into a proper state of production, or against an Order to observe the rules of good husbandry. Nobody could suggest that it would favour increased production from the soil. I hope the noble Viscount will keep that in view and consider whether it is right that your Lordships' House should make themselves responsible for an Amendment of this kind, when it is certain, I think, that the cause which we all have in view—namely, to get as much food as possible produced in the country—will be seriously injured thereby. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line S and insert ("not, except as hereinafter provided, come into operation until the termination of the present war and the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, exercisable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country with respect to matters dealt with in this Part of this Act, shall continue to operate until that date:—

"Provided that— (a) if any person is served under the said Regulations with a notice requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry or requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land in his occupation the proviso to subsection (1) of section nine of this Act shall apply as if the notice had been served under the powers conferred by that section; and (b) where any notice is served, order made, or possession of land taken under the said Regulations, the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the determination and recovery of compensation shall apply as if the notice had been served, the order made, or possession taken under the powers conferred by section nine of this Act").—(Lord Clinton.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

We have listened with great interest to what fell from my noble friend opposite with regard to a certain point in the Amendment which he is himself moving, and to which he has stated a serious objection. He has fixed entirely on the point that "if a person is served under the said Regulations with a notice requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry" he shall then have a right to appeal. But the noble Lord did not say anything about the other, and in some respects snore important, points from the standpoint of those who object to the Bill as it stands.

LORD CLINTON

May I interrupt? I think I stated at the beginning that appeals on the ground of new methods of cultivation—that would include the latter part of this clause—obviously should be allowed. The objection that I raised was to a right of appeal where the ordinary rules of good husbandry have not been followed.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It really was the former point, that of the changes in the method of cultivation, as to which I desire to be entirely assured. The noble Lord says very frankly that where it is a question of a change in the method of cultivating—that is to say, of ploughing up grass—the Board of Agriculture realises that an appeal is reasonable; and the same also applies, no doubt, to the question of compensation. But what I am not quite clear upon is this, whether the powers which the noble Lord will claim under the Bill if it becomes law, under the Defence of the Realm Act, will give locally to those who have to administer the Act any right of entry upon land which they do not possess under the existing Corn Production Act. May we take it as being quite clear that, so far as regards an Order to plough fresh land, the tenant, and of course also the owner, are left by this new Amendment in precisely the same position as regards the liability to plough as they are under the Act as it now stands? On that no doubt the noble Lord will later be able to inform us. I desire to be perfectly frank with the House, and I cannot help feeling—I think other noble Lords may have felt the same—that there is a good deal behind this desire of the Board of Agriculture to start a large fresh system of ploughing up pasture.

I confess that I was not able to follow with any intelligence the explanation which the noble Lord gave on the Second Reading with reference to the need of giving rest to certain land which was already arable and of leaving that land fallow, and ploughing up more pasture to grow corn crops, or some form of temporary crop, in order to take its place. I confess that this explanation came to me, and I think it may have come to others, with something like a shock of surprise. One might have supposed that he was in Western America in the early days when there were great stretches of virgin prairie open to the plough, and when—as was done, I think, in the State of Kentucky a good many years ago—the land had been ploughed for some years and its fertility exhausted to sonny extent, all that land was left derelict and the corn growers moved on further West. But we are in no such position here; and what I want to know is, What is going to happen to this land which is taking a rest? It must be kept clean, I presume; because, as my noble friend knows very well, you not merely exhaust land by growing weeds on it, as much as by growing crops, but you may damage it, if not irretrievably, at any rate for a number of years, before its proper farming condition can be resumed. Therefore this land will have to lie fallow in the way in which our ancestors used to allow great stretches of ploughland to lie fallow—not because they desired to do so, but because in those days artificial manures had not been discovered and developed, and there were no means of growing continuous crops on the same land.

This proposition, as I say, conies to me as an exceedingly strange one, and I can only account for it on the supposition that there is behind it a definite policy of the Board of Agriculture, as it now exists, for the diminution of pasture land in this country. My impression is that the present administration of the Board of Agriculture takes an almost fanatical view of the advantages of arable dairying as carried on in various parts of Europe, and, to a certain extent, in this country also. There is some very successful arable dairying, as the noble Lord knows, in one or two of the southern counties of Scotland, and I have no doubt myself that it is a system which might be enlarged and developed to great advantage in many parts of the country when a sufficient supply of labour is forthcoming. But I cannot help feeling that the present administration of the Board of Agriculture are so enamoured of this system that they are determined somehow to get rid of more pasture at almost any cost.

I cannot conceive that further ploughing up of grass to any extent in the United Kingdom can be regarded as a war measure. I cannot believe that for the next year or two years it can lead to a larger production of food; therefore I picture to myself the very eminent gentlemen who preside at the Board of Agriculture—not so much, I think, the President, who has a certain sneaking kindness, I believe, for pasture, but some other distinguished gentlemen—saying to themselves, "It is quite true that we shall not get much out of this as regards the coming year, or even the year after; but at any rate we shall get rid of a lot of this horrible old pasture to which some people are so much attached." I really believe that the Board is led away by what I would call its infatuation for ploughing up grass, and that the result, therefore, of this measure as it was originally introduced would have been to increase the breadth of arable all over the kingdom to an extent which some of us would think highly damaging to the food supply.

Consequently, although I do not at all desire to appear suspicious, I should like, before agreeing even to the latter part of the noble Lord's Amendment—because we all know that he has done his best to satisfy the expectation which he held out upon the occasion of the Second Reading—I should like to know whether it really is the case that the Defence of the Realm Regulations give the local committees, or whoever is acting for the Board, no power of insisting on ploughing or on changing the cultivation beyond what they possess under the Corn Production Act as it stands. I leave out for the moment the question of insisting on good husbandry; that is another point. But I should like to feel absolutely secure, on this point of appeal, that what the noble Lord is really doing is to withdraw his original Clause 1 so far as regards change in the mode of cultivation or in the use of land, and also as regards compensation. When the noble Lord comes to reply, I have no doubt he will be able to give an answer to these questions.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

As the noble Lord appealed to me personally, perhaps I may say at once a word in reply. So far as I was able to follow him, he seemed to imply that opposition to the Bill as it is at the present moment would involve this much, that a bad tenant could not be unseated with the same facility as at present. That is news to me. I do not understand why. There are ample powers under the Corn Production Act and there were ample powers before for getting rid of a bad tenant in a variety of different ways. The landlord could give him notice to quit, and the Government can do so now —

LORD CLINTON

In a year.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I cannot plead guilty to any views of that kind. I expressed my objections to it as plainly as I could on the Second Reading, and they were these—that it entirely altered the position of the tenants, occupiers, and owners of land as compared with what it was when the Corn Production Act was passed into law. That Act, in my humble judgment, never would have been passed had it not been for the Amendment agreed to by the Government in subsection (3) or (4) of Clause 11. But this has been departed from altogether; that is my main objection, and nothing so far as I am concerned will satisfy me until that difficulty has been removed. We are getting to such a pitch with regard to the pledges of Ministers on the Corn Production Act and those pledges being wholly unfulfilled, that I do not know what we are coming to or what the position is likely to be in the future. If I am challenged on this point I shall be able to make good every word I said on the particular subject. That is my objection to the Bill. My objection to bad tenants and my desire to increase the production of food, and to increase it by proper methods, were never greater than at the present moment.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I have on the Paper an Amendment to that which has been moved by Lord Clinton on behalf of the Government, and I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging to the full the very great courtesy and clearness with which Lord Clinton has conducted the operations in regard to this Bill, and if any adjectives pop out of my mouth I assure him that they do not apply to him but rather to the policy which on these occasions he is advocating. I believe that according to the forms of the House I have to move a negative to the Amendment proposed by Lord Clinton in order to propose my Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Not to this Amendment. The Amendment before the House is to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 8. If your Lordships agree to that, then it will be for Lord Clinton to move the insertion of the words standing in his name, and I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should first put the words of the Amendment down to the proviso. There is no disagreement upon the earlier part. Then it will be for Lord Clinton to move proviso (a), and upon that it will be open to Lord Desborough to ask your Lordships to negative the insertion of that proviso (a) in order that he may move his proviso (a).

LORD PARMOOR

I should like to say a word or two with reference to what Lord Clinton said in moving the Amendment which stands in his name. It certainly is a matter of suspicion—I do not say against the noble Lord—as to the future fate at any rate of a portion of this Amendment, that the representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House should express his dissent from it. He told us very frankly that he had given an undertaking to this House to put in an Amendment in this form, but—after consultation, I imagine, with the Board of Agricultuse—he also told us that he does not agree with the Amendment in this form.

LORD CLINTON

I pointed out the dangers to which it might lead.

LORD PARMOOR

Certainly it seemed to me very suspicious, and to suggest that, even if adopted here, it might be modified elsewhere.

LORD CLINTON

I made no such suggestion.

LORD PARMOOR

No; but when the noble Lord in moving the Amendment throws out a suggestion of that kind, it does not hold out much prospect that in the other Home the Board of Agriculture will stand by the terms of the Amendment which the noble Lord has proposed. I am sure that the noble Lord will feel the strength of what I say.

I wish to say one or two words on the Amendment itself. First of all, the noble Lord says that he does not want to give an appeal in reference to what he called "common things." For instance, the question of good husbandry. I want to say a word or two entirely on behalf of the tenants or cultivators of the land. It is important that you should have power to appeal, and for this reason. A question arises as to whether the view of the bureaucratic body that the rules of good husbandry have not been complied with is right, the tenant saying they have been and the body contending that they have not. The argument of the noble Lord is that the tenant is not to be given an opportunity of having that question decided by an impartial third body, but the case is to be decided against him on the ipse dixit of the bureaucratic body. I must say I think that is a very monstrous proposition, and it is absolutely out of accord with the provisions of the Corn Production Act. In fact, the noble Lord assents to that. He says, "Although the form in which I put it in here is the form of the Corn Production Act, I want to get out of that. It is true I gave an undertaking to bring in an Amendment in that form, and it is in accordance with the Corn Production Act; but I want to get out of that." I submit that if the tenant says he is acting in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and a discussion arises, he ought to have the advantage of an outside appeal.

There are two other matters to which I should like to call attention as to the form of this proposal. In language it might appear to be in accord with the Corn Production Act, but in truth and substance it is not; and for this reason. In the Corn Production Act very careful provisions were introduced in regard to notice, and so on, in order that there should be a possibility of bringing an appeal before an impartial body prior to the injury being actually done. Of course, that is of very great importance indeed. We do not find that in the noble Lord's Amendment. In the Amendment you might have the head cut off first and the trial of the person who has been decapitated afterwards. The agricultural executive authority might come in and do all the damage without any notice. I suppose the noble Lord will say that he wished to act quickly, but what is the good of an appeal after the damage has been done? May I put this to the noble Lord, because he dealt with this on Tuesday or Monday last, and I notice that he said "Give me the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act because I am in a hurry." Surely the answer to that is this; and we ought to bear it in mind. No one wants to obstruct in a matter of this sort. We all want to get the maximum of production; but if you are to be fair, it is necessary to give the farmer reasonable notice of what you want. The effect of this Amendment is that notice is taken away. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends that. He says he does.

LORD CLINTON

The period of notice to be given under the Defence of the Realm Act.

LORD PARMOOR

That is nil, though not necessarily nil. I put this to the noble Lord. Is it fair to act towards tenants and occupiers of land in this way without giving them a fair notice? Is it not exactly what the farmer is complaining of to-day—that having made all his provisions for farming in a certain direction an Order is forced upon him, without any notice, which upsets all his provisions, so as to make the maximum production absolutely impossible? I hope the noble Lord will consider this. It seems to me the essence of the matter. Why not give a man whose ordinary right you are going to interfere with a fair notice? That is what the Corn Production Act said. He ought to have it, because you interfere with his right, and if he has notice it gives him time in which to bring his appeal. I hope, therefore, that on both the grounds I have mentioned we shall be met.

I am afraid the noble Lord—I do not say himself—was preparing the way for giving up at a later date in another place what is in my opinion the most valuable part of his Amendment. Further, although he is purporting to follow the Corn Production Act, he is not doing so at all. Before I sit down may I say one word of a personal nature? I regret that the noble Marquess who made some remarks about my farming is not present. As he is not here, I only want to say this. There is not a shadow of foundation of truth, as far as I can understand, in what was no doubt his unintentional statement. I do not wish to say more than that in the noble Marquess's absence. I had hoped he might have been here.

LORD HINDLIP

I do not wish to intervene for more than a moment at this juncture. The noble Lord raised two bogies—I cannot call them anything else—in his opening remarks. Although they may frighten a good many people in another place, and may be used there with considerable effect, they are really not good enough to frighten your Lordships. One is the question of getting rid of a bad tenant and the other stopping anybody growing thistles. Surely it would be easy to get rid of a tenant, either with or without the help of a landland, in a short time; and as to the difficulty of growing weeds, the noble Lord and I are acquainted with an Act which operates through the West of Canada. The noble Lord could bring in a Bill something like that Act next week and pass it in a fortnight.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I do not quite understand where we are. Would the Lord Chairman kindly explain how this is going to be put?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I will repeat the explanation I have given. I propose to put the Question "to leave out from 'shall' to the end of line 8." That is the Question before the House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Lord Desborough's Amendment does not arise until all the words are struck out?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

There are three Questions which I shall put before Lord Desborough's Amendment can be proposed. First of all, there is the Question to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 8. If your Lordships agree to this, I shall put the Question that the words as printed be inserted down to the words "Provided that." If your Lordships agree, Lord Clinton will then move that his proviso (a) be inserted. If that is agreed to, then Lord Desborough's proviso (a) falls out. If it is negatived, Lord Desborough will be at liberty to move his.

On Question, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 8, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, to insert the words as printed down to "Provided that," Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON

I now beg to move proviso (a) of the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved—

To insert as a proviso: (a) if any person is served under the said Regulations with a notice requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry or requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land in his occupation the proviso to subsection (1) of section nine of this Act shall apply as if the notice had been served under the powers conferred by that section."—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD DESBOROUGH had on the Paper the following Amendment to Lord Clinton's proposed proviso—

Leave out subsection (a) and insert the following: (a) Before any person is deprived of the occupation of his land in connection with the food supply of the country, he shall be served with a notice of the intention of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take such possession, and if any person is served with such notice as aforesaid or with a notice, requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry or requiring my any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land in his occupation or otherwise dealing with the said land for the purposes of food production, the proviso to subsection (1) of section nine of this Act shall apply as if the notice had been served under the powers conferred by that section.

The noble Lord said: I rise for the purpose of opposing the noble Lord's Amendment. I understand it is necessary to do so in order to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The noble Lord has not moved his proviso with any very great eloquence; at the same time I should like to take the opportunity of thanking him most sincerely for trying to meet what he understood I wanted on a previous occasion. I must say I very deeply lament that his efforts have not been wholly successful, and even to the small extent that they go do not understand that they meet with any great enthusiasm from himself. The only words which I heard from him in his recommendation of the Amendment were that it was a very great pity for farmers to grow thistles, in which I cordial y agree. If he will come down to my part of the country and look at the newly ploughed up land, which used to be good pasture, he will see more thistles than any tenant of mine has ever grown. Although I willingly accept the second part, it does not go as far as I should desire, and I venture to think that the House, on a late occasion, divided under some misconception.

The object of the four questions which I advanced—I think only two of them are dealt with—was to see that both the occupier and owner of the land should be in no worse position under the Defence of the Realm Act than they would have been under Part IV. of the Corn Production Act. supposing that Act had been allowed to come into force. With regard to the question of appeal, my desire was to secure that if the Government adopted the Defence of the Realm Act, instead of Part IV, the occupier and the owner should have the same right of appeal as they would have under Part IV, so that if either were dispossessed of his land for any purpose he should, together with the tenant, have at least due notice of the intentions of the Government, an opportunity of stating his case, and, if necessary, a right of appeal to an independent person appointed to consider the matter, not against the wishes of the Government but upon certain points. There is no doubt if you take forcibly land which has been occupied by a tenant, as a noble Lord who has left the House has just said, you may upset the whole system of his cultivation.

Supposing land is required for allotments or small holdings. Naturally the most convenient part of the estate and very often what is called the "eye" of the farm is required. Well, I think anyone who is going to have his land taken away from him should have the opportunity of explaining to an independent authority the damage that is being done to him, and to the food production of the country, by spoiling the most economical working of that farm with the object of producing the utmost possible amount of food. There are several cases where this may happen. The Government, not knowing much about it—they do things which they do not know much about—may want small holdings, and a man may have to give up a portion of his farm for small holdings. I think he ought then to have the power of explaining to an independent referee that if he gives up that particular piece of land his cattle may not be able to get to their water, or it may be absolutely impossible for him to work his farm as it should be.

We were told on a recent occasion that there was great urgency for this Bill. The Government have up to August 21 next, and I cannot see what the great urgency is for getting these powers. Under Part IV of the Corn Production Act very wide powers are given to the Government, and I do not think these powers ought to be exceeded. I firmly believe that the farming interests of this country are getting rather tired of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. There is too much secrecy about them. People come and take your land without giving you even an opportunity of urging before an independent authority the reasons why that particular piece of land should not be taken. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he would meet my four points. One of them is not mentioned—Regulations.

LORD CLINTON

I gave no promise about Regulations.

LORD DESBOROUGH

There was no promise, but I was rather taken to task for venturing to suggest that before your Lordships divided there were four possible points which, if they were met, might make a great deal of difference to our attitude in regard to the Bill. I am pointing out that one of the points—namely, Regulations—is not even mentioned. I should like to tender my most grateful thanks to the noble Lord for having gone so far in meeting us in regard to compensation. On the question of the right of appeal his Amendment falls far short of that which I think most of the independent members of your Lordships' House thought was going to be given us before the Division took place. I do not wish to occupy your Lordships' time any longer, but I must say that the question of giving notice is most important; unless you have notice you cannot appeal; and with regard to the powers mentioned in my Amendment, they are the powers which give the right of appeal.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think it would not be in order for me actually to put the Amendment now, but it vi mild be entirely in accordance with the practice of your Lordships' House that the two rival schemes should be discussed. The actual Question before the Committee is the insertion of proviso (a) moved by Lord Clinton.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite. It is on the point of the notice with regard to cultivation according to the rule of good husbandry. I understand that the noble Lord attaches some considerable importance, on reconsideration, to the elimination of that particular notice, on the ground of time; and the question I wish to put to him is this, Is he able to give any general estimate of the time which, in the case of such a notice being served on a tenant, would be occupied by an appeal such as would be granted under either of these two Amendments? It is quite clear, of course, that the process would in every case be a much shorter one than the only form of relief open to the landowner—namely, that of giving notice to quit, which might presumably take a year and a half. Is the noble Lord able to tell us, when he replies, what sort of time, in his opinion, would be occupied by an appeal to an arbitrator under this clause? I should have thought myself it would be a very short business.

THE EARL, OF SELBORNE

Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to emphasise what the noble Marquess has just said. It would help your Lordships' House considerably if the noble Lord would explain the difference between the Amendment of my noble friend and the Amendment which he himself has moved, and why be regards the Amendment of my noble friend with misgivings.

LORD PARMOOR

I have some knowledge of methods of this kind, and supposing it is merely getting an independent surveyor or arbitrator appointed by the President of the Institute to go and see whether an Order is required by good husbandry or not, I say it could be done within three weeks, and probably within a fortnight. It is absolutely distinct from the sort of appeal to which my noble friend Lord Crewe referred.

LORD CLINTON

Several points have been raised, not all connected actually with the Amendment I have been moving, and I will endeavour as far as possible to reply to them in order. In the first case, the noble Marquess opposite asked if there was any power of entry under the Defence of the Realm Act other than is provided by the Corn Production Act. Clearly there is. There are such powers as entry for allotments, and for purposes of which I spoke the other evening' The noble Marquess went into a long argument, with which I agree, on the question of what we term "relief land." When I was speaking of concentration, and the advisability if possible of getting relief land, I said the whole thing pivotted on the question of labour. It is quite obvious that it is no use letting land get into weeds and doing nothing; otherwise you are wasting rather than improving your land. The whole thing must hinge on the question of labour. I think I also said I did not want to create any impression that, although we were going to concentrate on land, we were going to ask for more land. That is the main reason why I spoke of the ploughing-up of fresh land, and I do not think noble Lords need have the suspicion that behind this there is some tremendous project for breaking up the land in the country and going in for a large scheme of arable farms. It may be in some one's mind, but it certainly has not been suggested to me.

Another point was raised by Lord Par-moor and by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, as to the estimate of time that these appeals would take. It has been suggested to me that they may take from six weeks to three months. If, as is possible, you have a large number of Orders out against people for not cutting their thistles, you may get a congestion which would lead to an appeal taking a very much longer time than I have named; consequently the thistles would have reseeded and would have grown up again into thistles before the appeal was over. The noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, asked why there was need for rapid entry at this moment when there was plenty of time to get rid of the farmer on terms under a lease or otherwise.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I did not specify a lease.

LORD CLINTON

I implied a lease. But under a lease or anything else, you cannot get rid of the farmer, however bad he is, without ample notice. That is, of course, one of the disadvantages to us who are in a hurry to get land put into order for corn production, and who want to use the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act. It may sound wrong that you should enter upon land at all without notice, and I would agree, except in the urgency of the present moment. We have in these times, I regret to say, to do many things which none of us have ever done in our lives before, and we have to treat bad tenants in a way in which perhaps we ought always to have treated them. It is the urgency of the moment that makes these great powers necessary.

I have tried to make your Lordships realise how if the Amendment is carried in its entirety, it will take away the powers which I say are absolutely necessary to this country in order to enforce proper cultivation and the cleaning of the land. I am quite sure that unless you get the power to compel the cleaning of land without the long notice necessary by the use of ordinary methods you will never get it cleaned in time to produce food. The noble Lord Lord Parmoor, says that I am acting against the interests of tenants in this. I am quite prepared to admit it. I am very sorry for it. I am endeavouring to act against the interests of the bad tenants, and I am quite certain that Lord Parmoor is not a supporter of bad tenants.

LORD PARMOOR

It is the question whether or not he is a bad tenant that you have to determine.

LORD CLINTON

I hardly admit that. The noble Lord himself, in going over land, can see quite easily whether it is growing a crop or weeds, and if he will consider he will agree that it is his duty to order that man to cut his weeds or to remove the cause of complaint whatever it may be. I do not think that there is any difficulty in the matter, and considering the urgency of getting this land put into order I do not think any obstacle should be raised to the giving of the necessary powers for that purpose. The noble Lord, in his speech, was arguing against any use of the Defence of the Realm Regulations at all.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I merely asked for notice of what you are going to do, and of a right to appeal in certain cases.

LORD CLINTON

Exactly. If the noble Lord lays it down that we are in future to act only under the old method of notices, he is in effect taking away from us our powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which are largely intended for the purpose of getting on to the land immediately. That is the reason why I ask your Lordships to believe that they are absolutely necessary powers for us to possess at this time. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, asked me to explain the difference between Lord Desborough's Amendment and my own. My Amendment deals with the power of appeal after notice is served requiring land to be brought into proper cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry, and also in regard to the requirements for changing the cultivation of land—what we call the Ploughing-up Orders. These are the two points raised, and they are the two points raised in the Corn Production Act. The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, goes one step further, and says that nobody shall be deprived of the occupation of his land in connection with the food supply of the country—

LORD DESBOROUGH

It is not quite true to say that. But after notice and a right of appeal.

LORD CLINTON

I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I quite understand that. The tenant shall not be deprived without notice and without a right of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, will I am sure help me in this matter, which is one of some difficulty. Under the Corn Production Act, in a subsection of the clause we are discussing, an appeal is given apparently not against the determination of the tenancy but against the Order to cultivate according to the rules of good husbandry. That appeal the tenant will have, and if his tenancy is ordered to be determined, he will still have a right of appeal on the grounds of cultivation; at all events, that is what I believe he will have. I am not quite certain, if you accept the suggestion which I have made, whether or not it will be covered; but under my original Amendment I believe it was covered—that an appeal would be given in every case where the determination was on account of either (a) or (b).

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I take it that the point he has just made is that, as a matter of fact, no notice of the determination of the tenancy would ever be given except on one of the three grounds upon which an appeal is explicitly allowed.

LORD CLINTON

I think that is the case.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The other point of determining the occupation does not require a separate appeal. That, I take it, is the noble Lord's point.

LORD CLINTON

I am not quite certain if I can say that it goes quite as far as that. It might require a separate appeal, but the appeal would be, I understand, on the ground of bad cultivation and not on the actual determination.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

The noble Lord commenced his observations by telling us that labour at the present time was really at the root of the question of increased food production, and no truer statement than that was ever made. But that gives rise to the next question—What is the position with regard to labour at this moment? Has the agricultural industry in the opinion of the Government adequate labour at the present time, or anything approaching adequate labour, for the increased production of food? Everybody knows that the great majority of farmers in various parts of the country are complaining that labour is short, and are putting in appeals at present on the ground of the want of labour. They are giving that as the reason why more land should not be ploughed at the present time. What they tell us is, "We have not got sufficient labour to deal with the existing arable land at present; for Heaven's sake, therefore, do not call upon us—we are short of horses and short of men—to plough up more grass land which will be utterly thrown away and useless owing to the difficulty of labour." I hope we shall hear very distinctly whether there is labour sufficient to warrant this increased and immediate demand for ploughing-up more land.

Why we object to the Defence of the Realm Act is not because, as the noble Lord said, we deny that there can be any use in these powers at all; we object to it because of the abuse of those powers which has happened already in so many cases of which we receive complaints day after day, and which are putting the farmers into such a condition of mind that I become more and more apprehensive what their attitude will be in the future if any further pressure is put upon them. Their position seems to be altogether forgotten. They are the most loyal fellows to help in pro- duction that ever existed if you will give them a fair chance, but they cannot have a fair chance if you call on them to take steps which require additional labour when they have not even the labour they want for the work which is urgent at the present time.

May I remind the noble Lord of something which happened, I think, last year—and in every criticism that pass upon Ministers I hope he will remember that not one single word has any reference to himself. He has only just been appointed to his position, and he is not in the least degree responsible for anything that has happened in the past. Last year I moved and carried a Resolution, with the acceptance of Lord Milner and the Government, to this effect—that no more land should be ploughed up unless and until the Government were satisfied that the labour was assured and ready, if required, to do not only justice to the existing arable land but also to the new land required to be ploughed up. That was the ground of our objection to those extreme powers for the ploughing-up of land being renewed in the Corn Production Bill, powers which are not required at this particular moment, nor likely to be for some considerable time.

LORD SUMNER

I am not at all sure that the House at this stage in the discussion quite appreciates what the question is that is before us, and I say this because I do not myself quite appreciate it. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has asked Lord. Clinton to be so good as to explain to the House precisely the difference between the Government's Amendment and Lord Desborough's Amendment. I do not doubt that Lord Clinton is entitled to say that it is not for hi in to explain Lord Desborough's Amendment. But the difficulty we are all in is to know precisely what the Government's Amendment means.

May I recall how the position stands? Last year an Act was passed as the result of one of those somewhat unsatisfactory proceedings, a Parliamentary bargain. Whatever were the merits or the demerits of the particular part of the Act—I think it is Part IV—there it stood. Two nights ago the noble Lord came down and introduced a very short Bill, producing it with the most engaging candour, with a confession that it is a breach of faith, which he commits with reluctance, but which he says it is in the interests of the nation that he should commit. Then, when it is explained, it turns out, as far as I can make out, that the real point is this. The Defence of the Realm Regulations touching the cultivation of land perish on August 20 by the operation of the present Act. The Board of Agriculture, which is possibly intoxicated with the enjoyment of arbitrary power, dreads the repeal of those three or four paragraphs of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and comes and says, "We cannot carry out the increased programme of food production if we are deprived of the powers that we have at present."

Now there are certain things that one sees at once may be well founded in that respect. There may be a farmer who will not cut thistles, whom we can at present force to cut thistles, and whom, under the Corn Production Act as it stands, we shall only be able to force to cut his thistles when they have seeded and he has gone to arbitration and there has been an award. That we perfectly appreciate. But what we cannot understand is why the Corn Production Act should not have been allowed to stand as it was, with the one proviso that, instead of the whole of the Defence of the Realm Regulations coming to an end on August 20, notwithstanding the provision of that Act certain Defence of the Realm Regulations should be continued, and let them specify what exactly it is that they want to do.

We want to compel bad farmers to cease to be bad farmers; we want to prevent certain things being done. Well then, by all means put that down clearly; ask this House to pass it, and personally I have no doubt that the House will pass it at once. But its Lord Parmoor said, what you seek to do is not merely to prevent the bad farmers from farming badly, but to be absolutely entitled to say whether a man is a bad farmer or not, without giving him the opportunity of being heard in his own defence. And although, if the thistle point is kept well before us, we all appreciate that there is very little that can be said in defence of the cultivation of thistles, there are plenty of other points in which, in the present state of affairs—scanty labour and high prices—it may be a very moot point indeed whether a man is a bad farmer or not, and he surely ought to be heard.

In that state of affairs, where we find ourselves is this. In pursuance of the pledge of two nights ago the noble Lord has introduced an Amendment which appears to have, as far as I can follow it, textually the object in view of preserving the right that is at present given by the Corn Production Act to an appeal where a notice is served either requiring different cultivation in the interests of good husbandry or requiring a change in the mode of cultivation: and also preserving the present provision for the determination and recovery of compensation. The noble Lord rather appeals to us to permit him to leave out of his proviso the first words about the requirement, so that it should only run "served under the said Regulations with a notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivation"; that is to say, he would like to leave out the question whether the farmer is a good or bad farmer. I have seen no disposition on the part of the noble Lords who have spoken to meet him so far.

Lord Desborough, on the other hand, wishes not only to preserve the right of ' appeal against an Order demanding better cultivation or a change in the mode of cultivation—that is, ploughing up—but he wishes also that before (under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which will be preserved) the land can be taken out of his hands, the farmer shall at least have notice that it is going to be done, and a chance of being heard as to whether it should be done or not. I do not know whether there is anything in the present state of affairs which makes that highly detrimental to the public interest; but, if there is, I think the Government should come forward and state explicitly that they want powers conferred upon them, or preserved to them, which will enable them to do that particular thing, and tell us why.

If we are to proceed with this discussion now. it seems to me that there is no choice before us so satisfactory as that of voting for Lord Desborough's Amendment. We know what that means; it at any rate appears to be fair; it at any rate has not been answered as far as I have been able to make out, except on what I call the thistle point; and there will be an opportunity if the Government is able to point out some grave national disadvantage, to bring about a reconsideration of the matter on Report. But I think that a straight point is always the best, and instead of amending an Act before it comes into force, and amending it by leaving out something, and nevertheless saying that something else shall apply, it would be very much better to say, "What we want is to continue some of these Defence of the Realm Regulations which will come to an end, and to continue them in the following form, and for the following reasons." Then I do not think any time would be taken up in finding out at any rate what they meant.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I wish my noble friend would tell us exactly the reason why, in the opinion of the Government, it is not consistent with public welfare that the notice should be given. That is the point. I asked my noble friend before, but he has not answered me.

LORD CLINTON

I am sorry I did not reply before to the question raised by the noble Earl; I did not think of it. But to me it is an easy question to answer. Why should not the full notice be given?—because there is no time to act if it is given. These acts of bad husbandry are going on throughout the year or year and a-half during which your notice may extend; meanwhile everybody is anxious to see that land producing as much food of some sort as possible. Surely that is a complete answer.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Lord is referring to the notice to quit, and not to this notice.

LORD PARMOOR

It is the notice dealing with the occupation of the land.

LORD CLINTON

You are not dealing with my Amendment?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am dealing with Lord Desborough's Amendment.

LORD CLINTON

As applied to the provision of allotments, it is certainly essential that we should have the power of getting the land immediately. I do not think this is on a very large scale as regards country land. The number of applicants that go to an acre is very considerable—sixteen; and a great deal of the land required is derelict, unoccupied building sites; but it is required for the purpose of allotments, and I submit that this purpose is so valuable, for the reasons which I think I stated fairly fully the other night, that it is a power which we ought not to give up.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Pam afraid that I must put your Lord ships to the trouble of a Division on my Amendment; but I should like to mention the two points which seemed to trouble my noble friends opposite. They are thistles, which have been alluded to already, and bad tenants. I should be quite Willing to introduce a measure, which am sure would pass both Houses, to deal with noxious weeds—a measure which has been found useful in New Zealand, Australia, Alberta, and other of our Dominions. Even then I think there ought to be a right of appeal, because in regard to this land which has been compulsorily ploughed up it is impossible to keep it clean. If thistles grow on a man's land because he has not the labour to keep it clean, why should you, without hearing what he has to say, turn him out of his property? Then if a measure to deal with bad tenants is wanted—well, all I can say is that the last thing noble Lords want is bad tenants.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I find myself at variance with my noble friend Lord Desborough and several others of my noble friends who have spoken on this question. I put to my noble friend (Lord Clinton) several times a question which he has at last answered, and his answer was the answer which I expected. I hope your Lordships will allow me at some little length to give you the reasons why I ask you not to accept the Amendment of Lord Desborough, and I do so with a very great sense of responsibility, drawn from the fact that I have had the honour to occupy the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, that I have been Minister of Agriculture during this war, and that for two years past I have been dealing with the very group of questions of which this is only one as chairman of a certain Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee. My attitude on this question is based upon my absolute conviction that the ploughing policy of the Government is right; that is not only right but that it is essential to the safety of this country in this war and for winning this war. Let me now give to your Lordships the reasons why I think this, and let me tell you where I differ from my noble friends. They do not think that this ploughing policy has been successful. I wholly differ from them. There have been great mistakes, but they were unavoidable.

LORD DESBOROUGH

They might have been avoided.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I say quite plainly—and I ask your Lordships to remember what I say after next harvest—that, this ploughing policy has been an essential factor in winning the war, and that you will find after the next harvest that the increase of production has far exceeded anything you at present anticipate. I know that there is foul land, but I know also that there is a great deal more land that is not foul. I myself have ploughed a considerable amount of land for the size of my estate. All I have to say is that on this land I have at the present moment finer crops than I have ever had in thirty years of farming. I have used my eyes whilst going about the country and about my own county, and it is a complete misrepresentation of the facts of the case to say that most of the land that has been ploughed up is in thistles or is not bearing useful crops.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Nobody said that.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I think that is the suggestion which is constantly made. Now, I understand the position of the Government to be this. They will not say that they are going to ask you to plough more land. I think they are right to be very cautious; because, as my noble friend has said, the whole thing is a question of labour. It must be a question of labour, but I should be very sorry if the Government were to pledge themselves not to plough any more land. Therefore, to be perfectly frank, they wish to have in reserve the power, if necessary, to plough some more land, but they also wish to have the power to enter upon land and to turn it into allotments. This really is at the present moment the key of the position of the Government, and I want to dwell upon it a little. Under the Corn Production Act, Part IV, they have no power to take land for allotments. Under the Defence of the Realm Act they have power to take land for allotments. If Lord Desborough's Amendment were carried the process of taking land for allotments would, in my judgment, be so much delayed as to jeopardise the benefit they expect from the cultivation of these allotments.

Now, what part is this allotments cultivation playing at present? The increase of allotments has been something enormous during the course of this war, and the food that is produced on them is a very impor- tant contribution to the food production of the country. But the value of these allotments goes much further than the increased production of food. It is the first time that there has ever been a chance of a link between the rural population and the urban population in the matter of agriculture. The out-look of the townsman on agriculture and the farmer never can be the same, since he has become an allotment holder, as it was before. Before that he had not a glimmer of the conditions under which land was cultivated. Experience of an allotment has shown him for the first time some of the difficulties in microcosm which the farmer has to meet, and therefore I say that in my judgment the importance of the allotment movement at the present moment is double. It is a real contribution to the food of the country. It is also for the first time a link between the industrial and the agricultural populations. Now the Government tell us on their responsibility that without the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act they cannot deal with the allotment question satisfactorily, and I must say that I think this alone is a sufficient reason for their wanting to postpone the operation of Part IV of the Food Production Act, but I should have thought that to postpone the operation of Part IV without the conditions which he now offers would not only have been a breach of faith with this House but also art unnecessary voidance of conditions which are in themselves of great value.

Here I must express my difference from my noble friend opposite (Lord Clinton). He has told us that we shall be taking a great responsibility if we insist upon the first part of his Amendment which brings under the provisions of appeal an Order to cultivate according to the rules of good husbandry. I cannot take seriously his argument on that subject. I cannot be impressed by the thistle argument. I do not think that in operation the effect of that appeal would be found in any way seriously to interfere with the food production or which he is so strenuous an advocate. Therefore my own position is that I should wish to see the whole of the Amendment of Lord Clinton passed, but not the addition of Lord Desborough. Now what is at the root of the suspicion, which is, I quite admit, a wide-spread one—rather wider spread in this House than it is among the landowners or farmers generally. It is a fear lest these very extensive powers given under the Defence of the Realm Regulations should be abused. I ask your Lordships, Have they been abused?

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Yes, in many cases.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My noble friend says, "Yes, in many cases." I venture to think that all the eases of which be has ever heard or could collect would form a very small proportion of the executive acts done by the different war agricultural executive committees in the country. It must be remembered that this work is not done by the Board of Agriculture or by the officials of the Board, but by small committees of farmers, landowners, and land agents in every county. Remember also that these small committees have not been appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture, although no doubt they have been given powers by the President of the Board. They have, I believe, in every case been appointed by the chairman of the county council out of the war executive committee started in the first year of the war. They have been constituted of local men—the best farmers, landowners, slat and agents.

Several NOBLE LORDS

No, No.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

That has Keen my experience, and my noble friends cannot say that my account of how these committees have been appointed is not accurate. The responsibility has been local and not central. I do not say that all the committees are equally good. It is clear that they could not be. But I do say with knowledge that on the whole these war agricultural executive committees have done their work extraordinarily well—I do not hesitate to put it as high as that. And have they shown undue precipitation or have they harried unjustly the farmer who is cultivating his land well? So far from that being the case, there has been in many counties I know a complaint that they have not been sufficiently strict with the man who has had his order to plough and has delayed ploughing month after month. Of course, the advantage of these local committees is that they know the circumstances of each farm. If a man has not got the labour they do not harry him. It is only when they know that he can carry out the orders of the executive committee and does not do so that they seriously interfere. Therefore although all human instruments are likely to err, and do err, and although it could not be otherwise than that they have made mistakes, and you find land which ought not to have been ploughed has been ploughed, I say that taking their operations as a whole and considering the speed at which—and the time in which they have had to work, the results that they have achieved have been very great.

With me this question of food production is still a nightmare. I do not hesitate to say that I do not think you are at the end of the submarine menace. You are not. It is quite wonderful what the Navy has done and is doing, but look at the tonnage destruction, the toll of which is published at the end of every month. Look also at the record of shipbuilding. Look how far it falls below what we are anticipating and hpoing. If we slack off in food production in this country we may still be defeated by that weapon, which the Germans first chose as most likely to bring us to our knees. It is only by increased food production in this country, in which all classes join, that we can look for success.

Now I want to say what I think about the farmer, having said what I think about the agricultural executive committees. I associate myself with every word that Lord Chaplin has said. There are some quarters in this country which ought to know better but which are holding up the farmers to scorn and opprobrium. There is a paper called the Co-operative News which is the official organ of the great industrial cooperative movement. Week after week it holds up the farmers as profiteers and buccaneers. That is a cruel libel. There is no class of men who more readily responded to the call made upon them; and without that patriotism., unless they had so responded, all the efforts of the Government and of the war agricultural executive committees would have been fruitless. It has only been this co-operation between the farmers, the war executive committees and the Board of Agriculture that has resulted in what I believe to be a triumph, as you will find when the records of the next harvest are to hand.

The Government now tell us, on their responsibility, that they need these powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to deal particularly with allotments, and, if need be, with increased Ploughing Orders. I am not going to take the responsibility of declining to accede to their request. On them rests the responsibility. If they ask for more land to be ploughed and do not give us the labour, they cannot get the result. They will do harm and not good, and I must say that the Government themselves are, in my judgment, very largely to blame for the strength—the genuine strength—of feeling on this subject held by my noble friend and many others. If they had not, at this critical moment, thought it their duty to withdraw 30,000 men from the land I doubt very much if we should have had this debate to-night or the debate which took place the other day. At any rate, there would not have been the same feeling of anxiety.

I sincerely trust that the Government will never again ask us to give more men from the land, and that they will try to give us the best substitutes they can for the men they have taken. They cannot give us real substitutes, but they are bound to give us partial substitutes. It is no pleasure to me to differ, and differ strongly—because I hold strong opinions—from my noble friends with whom I am proud usually to work and who equally conscientiously hold different views, but I should not have been true to what I believe to be the best interests of the country if I had remained silent.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Before your Lordships go to a Division I should like to say one word in reply to the speech which has just fallen from my noble friend. I think your Lordships will agree with me that that speech would have been better delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill—

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I could not be here.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

—than in opposition to the Amendment of Lord Desborough. He showed from first to last that what is in my noble friend's mind is a desire, if the Government ask for it, that a much larger acreage of land should be ploughed up. The point he made about labour at the close of his speech is really only one portion of the question. I entirely accept what fell from Lord Clinton in reply to the noble Marquess behind me. Lord Clinton declares that there is no set opinion at the Board of Agriculture in favour of a further great ploughing up of pasture land. I will put this to Lord Clinton. I doubt very much whether he will be able to say that with regard to many counties what is in the minds of the Board of Agriculture is not this—that they have had ploughed up a great deal of light land which has borne a first crop and is not likely to bear much of a second crop, and that we are not in a position in this country at this moment to fertilise that land sufficiently, so that what they are going to do is to insist on the ploughing up of other light land to make up for this light land which will not bear a second crop.

I cannot imagine a sequence of events more likely to paralyse the agriculture of this country after three or four years than an action of that kind. I only wish to give two instances. My noble friend Lord Selborne has given I think far too sweeping a commendation of the probable action of this Bill. I can only speak for one large section of the country, but I venture to say that any agriculturist will tell him after this year that far too much land has been ploughed up in Ireland; that land has become pasture because it was suited for pasture and cannot be made into arable permanently, and that, therefore, you can only hope to get a crop or two with any success from it.

With regard to the treatment of individuals I have had a number of complaints. I will give your Lordships one instance which came before a body of Commissioners, of which I am one, the other day. In an Eastern county a farmer had an order to plough up some 20 or 30 acres of very light land five miles from his homestead. He has no possible means. From time immemorial the land has not been ploughed because it is too light to plough, but he is ordered, and has been forced, to send his men and horses, at a time when he has practically no labour and is very short of horses, five miles daily for this work. There are no farm buildings within reach. Whatever the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, may have said, or whatever impression he has produced upon your Lordships by his great experience, as to the dangers, from a naval standpoint, to which we may be exposed, I venture to say his speech made no case whatever for the undue haste with which the Government would wish to proceed if Lord Desborough's Amendment is not accepted. Having regard to the fact that there are already grave causes for complaint and that the Government will have the power, but will only have it after due notice to those who are chiefly concerned, I hope your Lordships will support Lord Desborough in the Lobby.

LORD HARRIS

I wish to say one word in order to explain the vote which I shall give in support of the Government. I did so the other night because I thought my noble friend was wrong in forcing the Division having regard to the fact that His Majesty's Government had promised to bring in Amendments which they hoped would satisfy my noble friends. They have not satisfied them, but still the Government have done their best. With regard to the impressive speech of Lord Selborne, I disagree with my noble friend who has just spoken. I think his speech was more appropriate to this occasion than, to the Second Reading. The Question on Second Reading was whether or not we should be satisfied with the Government's promise

Amendment moved—

Insert the following proviso: (a) Before any person is deprived of the occupation of his land in connection with the food supply of the country, he shall be served with a notice of the intention of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take such possession, and if any person is served with such notice as aforesaid or with a notice

that they would bring in Amendments. I was satisfied, and my noble friend Lord Desborough was not. I think Lord Selborne's speech was appropriate to the present occasion. From his own experience he impressed on us the extreme necessity of doing all we can to cultivate land as arable instead of as pasture. I accept an opinion so important as that, and I do believe that the Government have to the best of their ability endeavoured to meet my noble friend's objections, which were perfectly valid as long as the Government tried to do away altogether with the right of appeal. They have now endeavoured to meet us as regards the right of appeal and compensation, and for myself I am satisfied with their efforts.

On Question, whether the proposed proviso (a) shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS
Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)	Colebrooke, L.
Wigan, L.(E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Elphinstone, L.
	Falmouth, V.	Gorell, L.
	Knollys, V.	Harris, L.
Salisbury, M.
	Milner, V.	Hylton, L.
Ancaster, E.	Peel, V.	Kenyon, L.
Chesterfield, E.		Lee of Fareham, L.
Lucan, E.	Annesley, L.	Rotherham, L.
Lytton, E.	Ashbourne, L.	Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]
Sandwich, E.	Cawley, L.	Stanmore, L.[Teller.]
Selborne, E.	Charnwood, L.	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Stanhope, E.	Clinton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)	Hindlip, L. [Teller.]
		Knaresborough, L.
Crewe, M.	Allendale, V.	Monckton, L.(V. Galway.)
Albemarle E.	Chaplin, V.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Beauchamp, E.	Churchill, V.	Parmoor, L.
Brassey, B.	cross, v.	Penrhyn, L.
Dartrey, E.	Harcourt, V.	Revelstoke, L.
Ferrers, E.	Iveagh, V.	Sandys, L.
Liehfield, E.	Beresford of Metemmeh, L.	Strachie, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Sumner, L.
Mayo, E.	Desborough, L. [Teller.]	Wemysn, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Strafford, E.	Faringdon, L.	Wrenbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry or requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land in his occupation or otherwise dealing with the said land for the purposes of food production, the proviso to subsection (1) of section nine of the Corn Production Act shall apply as if the notice had been served under the powers conferred by that section."—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON

My Lords, I move the insertion of proviso (b). I do not think it is a matter on which I need address your Lordships, as the point is fully understood.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following proviso: (b) where any notice is served, order made, or possession of land taken under the said Regulations, the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the determination and recovery of compensation shall apply as if the notice had been served, the order made, or possession taken under the powers conferred by section nine of this Act.")—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The object of the new clause which I move to insert is to extend to the owner the same privileges as are extended to the occupier; he should be in a position to appeal against any Order, equally with the occupier.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 1, insert as a new clause: Where any notice is served on a tenant a notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord, who shall have the same rights under this Act as though the land were in his occupation."—(Lord Desborough.)

LORD CLINTON

There is no objection to accepting the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HINDLIP had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new clause, "After the date of the passing of this Act no action shall be taken by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or their agents in connection with the food production of the country unless notice has previously been served on the occupier and owner of the land affected."

The noble Lord said: Under the Bill neither the owners nor the occupiers of land would hear anything about any Regulation, and would know nothing of it, until the Government were in possession of the land. I am not entirely wedded to the actual words on the Paper, and I would rather like to hear what Lord Clinton has to say about them. The object of the Amendment is to give warning, both to the owner and the occupier, that the Government intend to take some action. The noble Lord wants power of entry without notice, and the excuses he gave at the beginning of this afternoon's business, and his story about the thistle, were almost camouflage. Before he enters by means of this Bill I want him to knock at the door, and not come in at the middle of the night unbidden like a burglar.

Under the original Act the Government had to give notice before they took any action under Regulations. Under this Bill you would never know anything about it. I think, if the Government want us to agree to allow them to come in, they should give us the right of appeal against the Order. I should like to quote what Lord Selborne said last year, which the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, agreed was correct. Lord Selborne said— I am informed, on very high authority, that the intention of the Government is to withdraw the operation of the Defence of the Realm Regulations within a year, or at the end of the war, whichever would be the shorter, and their intention to do so is based on the feeling, which I share, that the Defence of the Realm Regulations were so drastic that they had much better be replaced as soon as possible by the milder provisions of the Bill. I understand that to be the intention of the Government, anal I should like the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, to confirm it.

Viscount Milner then said— The statement of the noble Earl is correct. That is the intention; not that the Regulations would cease automatically, but it is the intention of the Government to withdraw them at the end of the year, in order that the provisions of this Bill may take their place. I do not quite know why the noble Lord should change his mind entirely. I beg, to move.

Amendment moved—

After clause 1 insert as a new clause: After the date of the passing of this Act no action shall be taken by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or their agents in connection with the food production of the country unless notice has previously been served on the occupier and owner of the land affected."—(Lord Hindlip.)

LORD CLINTON

I have found it a little difficult to follow the noble Lord. He speaks of Regulations under the Act. I should like, if possible, a further explanation of his Amendment. Ho spoke of certain Regulations under the Act, and there is nothing in the Amendment with regard to those Regulations.

LORD HINDLIP

My Amendment is only to secure that no action should be taken without notice of what was intended.

LORD CLINTON

I have already answered that a good many times this evening and two nights ago. It is in effect to do away with the Defence of the Realm Act altogether. It is essential that we should be able to enter, and it is quite impossible as long as these Regulations are of any value to give them up.

LORD PARMOOR

The noble Lord asked me once before if I could give any assistance. I think I should suggest to Lord Hindlip not to press his Amendment, because I think that in vital matters notice will be given under Lord Desborough's Amendment which has been accepted.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STRACHIE

In the debate on the Second Reading Lord Clinton said that the Regulations Clause is not a part of Part IV; it is a part of Part V. I speak under correction, but I presume that it is now in force.

LORD CLINTON

There is one which I think is in force now.

LORD STRACHIE

I think it is clear that the point raised on Second Reading is not covered, and therefore I would ask the noble Lord to insert the new clause standing in my name. The object of my Amendment is to provide that any future Regulations to be made under the Defence of the Realm Act in respect of enforced cultivation should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament so that Parliament might see the Regulations and be able to ask for an explanation in regard to them. Under the Corn Production Act, Section 12, subsection (2), the Regulations would have, to be laid on the Table of the House. This Amendment proposes that the Defence of the Realm Regulations should be similarly laid. As noble Lords who are interested in these matters no doubt are aware, there are thousands of Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, but none are laid on the Table of this House; therefore noble Lords have no cognisance of them in their official capacity; neither in the other House have members any cognisance of them, and therefore they cannot be questioned in either Home of Parliament. Owing to the fact that in the future Regulations will be made under the Defence of the Realm Act and not under the Corn Production Act, unless this Amendment is accepted Parliament will have no control over the new Regulations. I am only asking that this should apply to corn production, that the Regulations under the Corn Prodution Act should not be treated merely as Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act.

Amendment moved.—

After clause 1, insert as a new clause: . Any regulations issued after the date of the psasing of this Act by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or their agents in respect of the enforced cultivation of land shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of section twelve of the principal Act."—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD CLINTON

The request of the noble Lord would mean that a new Order would have to be made with regard to the whole of the Defence of the Realm Regulations so that they should be laid on the Table of this and the other House. He has asked for this only in regard to agriculture, but I think it is fairly obvious in a measure of this kind that though it is possible to alter the incidence of the Order it is very unwise to do so.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Why?

LORD CLINTON

Because this Bill is one for corn production and not one for the general questions in regard to which numberless Orders are issued under the Defence of the Realm Act. In any case I should object to the noble Lord's Amendment, because these Regulations would, I believe, have to be laid on the Table for forty days while the House is sitting, and consequently this would involve us again in a considerable amount of delay which we certainly cannot afford. It would deprive us of that speed which we say is essential for the corn production of the country.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I can understand that the noble Lord and His Majesty's Government do not find themselves able to accept the Amendment of my noble friend, which undoubtedly covets a great deal of ground, but I am bound to point out that the noble Lord has rather brought this Amendment on himself by insisting so frequently and so strongly as he did upon the necessity of strengthening and using the Defence of the Realm Act, for the purposes of corn production; ever all the more when he obtained the support of my noble friend Lord Selborne for a large series of proceedings under the Regulations for a purpose which had nothing to do with corn production—namely, the provision of allotments, which one would suppose would naturally be provided for by legislation specially directed to that purpose. Allotments, as we, know, are not generally used, and certainly ought not to be used on a general scale, for the production of corn. Therefore, though I do not suppose my noble friend will attempt to press his Amendment, I feel bound to point out that His Majesty's Government have brought it upon themselves.

LORD STRACHIE

May I point out that Lord Clinton is under a misapprehension with regard to the Corn Production Act Regulations in saying that there would be a delay of forty days. I think the period is twenty days, and he could have suggested that in this particular matter it should be fourteen days. All we are anxious for is that Parliament should see these Regulations before they are put into force. Apparently the noble Lord does not want Parliament to know anything about them.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

That is not right.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Remaining clause agreed to.