Lords Sitting of 11 June 1918

BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, this Bill is of a character with which your Lordships are quite familiar. It is introduced under an Act passed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, when Lord Chancellor, to simplify procedure, the necessary steps being taken by Provisional Order instead of by a Bill in each case, and the Provisional Order has afterwards to be substantiated by Parliament. Your Lordships have passed many such Bills. The usual consultations have been held, the customary notices issued, and the draft Order published, and no objection has been raised. No petition was presented in the House of Commons, and no amendment to the Bill was there moved; and if your Lordships pass the Second Reading, the Bill will go to the Unopposed Bills Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Mill read 2a.

LAW AGENTS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill is exactly analogous to the Bill which your Lordships passed recently, by a large majority, to open the profession of solicitor to women. It proposes to do the same for law agents in Scotland. It does not touch solicitors before the Supreme Court, or Writers to the Signet. The Bill as it stands merely deals with the broad principle which your Lordships dealt with in the recent Bill. I move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read2a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HORSE BREEDING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (VISCOUNT GOSCHEN): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I am presenting a measure the provisions of which for some time past have received considerable support, and I am asking your Lordships to make obligatory a system the voluntary application of which has proved both useful and popular. This is a Bill for regulating the use of stallions travelling for service or exhibiting themselves on premises not belonging to the owner with a view to service. This country has won a great reputation for horse breeding, and I am sure you will agree with me that this has been greatly owing to the enterprise and generosity of private owners and the zeal and enthusiasm with which horse breeding societies have endeavoured to obtain improvement and soundness in the horses which they have bred. The refusal of these societies to give prizes or premiums to unsound stallions has not only achieved great practical results, but has paved the way to an acknowledgment of the need for further steps in this direction by way of legislation.
This Bill is net the first suggestion of legislation in this direction. A Committee of your Lordships' House in 1873 reported that compulsory registration of stallions was advisable, but they regretted that there was no machinery by which the administration could be carried out. In 1896, a Committee inquiring into horse breeding also reported in favour of compulsory registration; and in 1912 Lord Saltoun introduced a Bill into this House, but that measure dealt only with light horses, and did not go as far as this measure does. The latest Report that we have is that of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in 1915, which was appointed to consider what steps should be taken to secure an adequate supply of suitable horses for military purposes. The Committee strongly recommended compulsory registration of stallions.
Since the first inquiry conditions have considerably changed, and the suggestion that there is no machinery by which such administration could be carried out no longer holds good. We have had the experience of collecting and supplying

163
horses during two wars, and this has demonstrated how small a number of horses are really suitable for military purposes Lord Middleton's Committee received several letters which the War Office had written to the Board of Agriculture urging the need of improvement in the system of horse breeding. In one of those letters they say that they are appalled by the number of horses which are unsuitable for hard work; and in 1915 they write that—
"the experience of the recent mobilisation has shown that though this country produces many super-excellent horses, the number of unsound and utterly worthless horses which ought never to have been bred is deplorably large."
So that the question is really one of urgent national and military importance.
The Board of Agriculture consider that the first thing to be done is to eliminate the unsound stallion. The machinery is at hand, because when in 1911 the Development Commissioners gave a grant for the improvement of horse breeding the Board then instituted a system of voluntary registration. Under this system pedigree stallions were registered after veterinary examination, and I think the commercial value of such registration is shown by the number of stallions on those lists. At the present moment the number is 2,020, and I believe that the names of the large majority of pedigree stallions will be found entered on those lists. The object of the present Bill is to make registration compulsory for all stallions which travel for service or are exhibited for service on premises not belonging to their owners. It is introduced in order to protect the owners of mares against unsound stallions, of the condition of which they have, and can have, no knowledge. These stallions are got up to catch the eye; they are travelled up to the very doors of the farmers, and the owners of the mares are tempted to avail themselves of the services of such stallions, not knowing the loss which will accrue both to themselves and to the country.
This measure has received the support of most of the principal breeding societies, of the Royal Agricultural Society and the Farmers' Union, and I think I may say that there is a consensus of opinion in favour of it among all those who are interested in horse breeding. The same steps that I am now asking your Lordships to take have been taken by France, by
164
Germany, by Austria, by many of our Dominions, and by a great many of the Federal States of the United States. Your Lordships will see that under the Bill we do not entirely do away with the unsound stallion. The owner of a mare, if he desires the services of an unsound stallion, knowing that it is unsound but perhaps preferring the strain, may obtain the services of that stallion in its own stables, but such a stallion must not travel about the country or be exhibited in premises which do not belong to its owner.
The gist of the Bill appears in the first clause; the rest of the clauses chiefly carry out the purpose which is contained there. The Bill applies to Scotland and to Ireland, but the Irish Board of Agriculture has a different clause which will be found at the end of the Bill. Clause 2 proceeds to license a stallion for a fee not exceeding one guinea, provided it is not affected in the way mentioned in the paragraphs in subsection (2). In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) it is intended to put into the Regulations the diseases which are specified in the Regulations of the Board under the present voluntary system which have been accepted by most of the breeding societies. Clause 3 deals with the duration, transfer, production, and renewal of the licences; it also provides that for a stallion which has attained a prescribed age—and by that is meant an age which will be prescribed under the Regulations—and for which a licence has been previously granted for a prescribed number of years, the examination for wind only may be waived. This was a clause to which considerable importance was attached in the other House.
Clause 4 provides for an appeal. The appeal is to be to a veterinary officer or other person in the first instance, and from that person to the Board of Agriculture, with whom is to rest the final decision. The Horse Breeding Societies will be consulted as to the names of the veterinary surgeons and other persons to be appointed on the panel of referees. Clauses 5 to 9, inclusive, deal with the administration of the Bill. Clause 10 deals with stallions in the New Forest or on other commons. These commons have their own Regulations and by-laws, but by Clause 10 it is left to them to avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill and to come under them if they should wish to do so. Clause 11 deals with

165
the expenses of the Bill in so far as they are not met, and we do not expect that the charge on the Treasury will be very great. Clause 12 is a defining clause and fixes the appointed day, which shall be not earlier than the first day of January, 1920. Clause 13 applies the Act to Scotland; and Clause 14 is the clause dealing with Ireland, which has received the approval of the Irish Board of Agriculture.
I have endeavoured to prove that the Bill is of urgent necessity, and I hope that this fact, together with my assurance that its provisions have received the support of all those interested in the subject, will commend the measure to your Lordships' approval. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MILES DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
WESTGATE-ON-SEA CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Defence of the Realm Regulations have been applied impartially as between Great Britain and Ireland particularly in regard to fox hunting, horse racing, price of cattle, food control, the price of railway fares, and the consumption of petrol; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not suppose that your Lordships will be surprised at any reference to Ireland, considering the condition of that country. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, is going in the course of the next few days to refer to the more serious aspects of Ireland. I will, there-
166
fore content myself by calling your Lordships' attention, with regard to the general position of Ireland, to the fact that since Parliament has abandoned the principle of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland and has pandered to separatist Opinion, we have had an increasing volume of sedition, of privy conspiracy, and of revolution in that country. But the curious thing about Ireland is that, in spite of all this, people have been coming back from Ireland ever since the beginning of the war and telling their friends that it is really the only fit place in which a gentleman can live. They appear, as I think I shall show, to have privileges which are not accorded to the inhabitants in the other parts of these islands.
I allude first of all in my Question on the Paper to fox hunting. I desire, with your Lordships' permission, not to lay stress on that aspect of the subject; in fact, I wish to withdraw it, because it is well known to your Lordships that all masters of fox hounds constitute a patriotic class of the very highest degree, and I have not the slightest doubt that this characteristic applies equally to the Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association as it does to the Masters of Foxhounds Associations of England, Scotland, and Wales, whose conduct will go down to posterity as a fine example of how bodies ought to behave in a national struggle such as that through which we are passing at this moment. I shall not press that part of the Question, because I am informed that the Masters of Foxhounds in Ireland have taken note of the national exigencies and reduced their hunting accordingly.
With regard to horse racing, however, there is a different story to tell. If I am correctly informed, horse racing has received a boom in Ireland the like of which it has never had before; and as a consequence of racing being discontinued to some extent in this country, several patrons of the turf, including the bookmakers and all those other accessories, have crowded over to Ireland where they have been having a remarkably good time. They have had better horses there than they have had before; they have had better racing; they have had English horses there which would otherwise have been running in England; and altogether the sport of racing has been at a very high level. I am not putting this forward as far as I am concerned in a spirit of jealousy between

167
ourselves and Ireland, but, if the noble Earl has read the Sportsman of this morning, as I have—I understand he may have done so—he will see that there is a very well-founded belief among the horse racing fraternity in England that there is too much racing in Ireland proportionately to what there is in this country.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I will read one or two figures to show that this is not without some truth. Until about eight weeks ago forty-nine meetings had been arranged in Ireland from June 1 until October. The number was only cut down at the request of the Irish Railway Executive. It has been cut down in this way. There are now arranged in Ireland twenty-two meetings from June to October, meaning thirty-eight days' racing, while in England there will be only eight race meetings, all at Newmarket, which will occupy only thirty days. I submit to the noble Earl that horse racing is either desirable from the national point of view or it is not. If it is not desirable—I think it is—to carry it on from the point of view of our breed of horses, then do away with it. But if it is desirable, I suggest that you should regulate it, if you can, in Ireland on the same scale as it is regulated in this country, having regard to keeping racing alive sufficiently to preserve our breed of horses, which I submit is the only real reason for keeping it on at all at the present moment.
But in addition to horse racing there are other forms of sport which I understand have come to an end in this country but which are being enjoyed in Ireland, such as coursing, whippet racing, and the good old Gallic sport of cock fighting, which is going on merrily over there. In fact, it is quite possible to paint a picture of Ireland which could shown that in spite of their own behaviour, and in spite of the war, junketing is going on as if the war were not a war at all.
As to food control, I understand that there is practically no article of food in Ireland that has been rationed, with the exception of sugar. Sugar has only recently been rationed, so much so that a friend of mine who came over from Ireland the other day—he has been over in this country for some weeks—came over literally stuffed with sugar, and I believe has subsisted in this country on the sugar that he brought over from Ireland. I understand, however, that sugar has since
168
been rationed there. I would like to ask the noble Earl whether any other forms of food are rationed in Ireland at the present moment. It is well known that the beautiful pastures of that country produce-milk and butter in great quantities, and one of the advantages of being a member of the Convention was that whenever you attended the Convention you could come back with your portmanteau full of butter. It is quite true that there has been some attempt at putting the Public Meals Order in force in certain towns in Ireland—to wit, I am told, Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Belfast, and Londonderry—but this has probably been done not so much through pressure by the Government or from a patriotic desire to help the national food supplies, but because it happens to suit the restaurateurs to supply a smaller meal at the same price as was charged before the Public Meals Regulation was brought into force.
I am informed by a friend of mine in Ireland that the difficulty of putting any sort of food control in force there would be extremely grave, and I suppose the Government know this just as well as I do, If you attempted to get any sort of food control there with the present organisations—they are mostly manned by separatists, Nationalists, or Sinn Feiners, and those whose main concern is not to help England in the time of difficulty—I understand that it would be extremely difficult for any Government to get its orders carried out. It is, however, important, and I hope that in this matter of food control the Government will at least try to treat Ireland in the same way as England, because this different treatment is creating a natural feeling of discontent in this country.
I pass to the question of railway fares, to which I believe the Government have a complete answer. Within the last few days it is true that the price of railway travelling has been raised by 50 per cent., but this does not alter the fact that since the beginning of the war there has been no previous increase in the price of railway fares in Ireland, whereas in England fares have been rising on a constantly increasing scale.
Then we have restriction of the price of cattle. This is a very curious state of things, and I put this question to the noble Earl quite as much from the desire to get some information as from any wish to

169
establish a case, against the Government. It appears, if my figures are correct, that the whole thing has really been an utter farce. Nobody has paid the slightest attention to it. Although the maximum price in England has been 75s. per cwt., in Ireland fat cattle have been making over 100 s. per cwt. in Dublin market, up till a month ago. There has now been a big drop. Fat cattle have been sold at 95 s. per cwt. live weight in the stalls; they were bought by a dealer for immediate shipment to England. Allowing for loss of weight on transit and expenses, this would put the price up to nearly 1108. per cwt. in England. As they must be sold in England at the regulation price, it would be interesting to know how the dealers work it. They obviously do not lose money, and it would be interesting to know who pays the difference upon this transaction. This is merely one instance, I am informed, of what has been going on all over the country during last season.
There is one little matter, my Lords, which I have not stated in my Question, but to which I would like to call attention in passing—namely, the number of horse shows which it is proposed to hold in Ireland; and horse shows which will involve railway travelling and also at which jumping competitions are going to be held. There is nothing in the world more purely luxurious and unnecessary from the national point of view than a jumping competition at a horse show. It is only brought in to attract people who do not know a horse's head from its tail, and so to get a gate for inefficient management who do not know how to run a horse show. I am not going to say anything against horse shows because I propose running one of my own in the autumn, but it will be run on proper lines and in the national interest; because it will be purely local and will involve no railway travelling. They will be principally shire horses shown there, and there will be no jumping competition. But that does not alter the fact that arrangements have been made for no fewer than twenty-six horse shows to be held at different places in Ireland between now and September 19.
Now I come to the extremely interesting question of petrol. Everybody says—and I have material here to prove that there is a certain foundation for what everybody says—that unless you happen to be a Sinn Feiner it is extremely difficult to get petrol
170
at all. If you belong to the disloyal portion of Ireland, somehow or other the petrol is forthcoming. Just listen to this, my Lords. This is at the Ballycastle Petty Sessions, and it is reported in the Irish News, a Nationalist paper, of May 28, 1918. There were several prosecutions there for the illegal use of petrol, and several gentlemen were proceeded against for using motors to bring speakers and others to an anti-conscription meeting at Cushendall on some date in April which I cannot read. The report saws—
Mr. Walsh, who defended, said they had a perfectly good defence in this, as they were entitled to use petrol on matters of public duty, and they could hardly have discharged a more important public duty at the time than to try and save their country from the horrors that conscription would have entailed. It was war work of the most urgent importance to prevent the creation of a new from in Ireland."
On the very day on which they had been prosecuted, Mr. T. M. Healy, K.C., M.P., Mr. John Dillon, M.P. and Mr. de Valera, M.P., had motored down from Dublin to Maynooth on exactly the same business, and the authorities had evidently considered that they had done nothing illegal. Now we also know that petrol must have been used for the highly patriotic purpose of rifling the Duke of Abercorn's house to see if there were any arms that would be available at some future time. I do not suppose the noble Earl knows any more than I do where the petrol came from which these bandits used when they went to the Duke of Abercorn's to take down the swords of his ancestors from the gallery with a view to cutting somebody's head off when they got an opportunity of doing so. But I do commend to the Government the fact that some of us over here consider it a very grave injustice that petrol should be forthcoming for rebellious subjects on the other side of the water while we cannot obtain any ourselves.
I have tried to show your Lordships that here there is at least some foundation for the idea that Ireland, so far as personal comfort goes—so far as being able to enjoy those amenities of life which we all used to enjoy before, the war—has been placed in a privileged position. I hope the Government will be able to refute every single thing I have said. I do not believe they will; but I hope seriously that His Majesty's Government will tell us to-day that they are going to take some steps at any rate—

171
all the steps in their power—to reduce the balance of comfort and discomfort as between England and Ireland. The present Prime Minister is the one man of all others whose speeches entitle us to hope that he will use his influence to do this. He is always talking about democracy. I do not myself know what "democracy" means. The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, said the other day that we were all democrats. I certainly am not. The only definition of "democracy" that ever appealed to me in the slightest was a definition which, I believe, was given by Mr. H. G. Wells in one of his extremely interesting books, when he said that democracy was the means of making everybody else suffer equally with yourself. So far as we are concerned in regard to Ireland, a great many of us are beginning to be democratic. The Prime Minister, however, gave another definition of "democracy." He said that it was the negation of privilege. Well, there is a very great deal to be said from that point of view. If it is the negation of privilege, will he see to it that the one point in the whole of his Government which is a glaring example of privilege shall be redressed at the earliest possible moment?
Before I sit down there is one other point which, in running over in my mind what I had intended to say, I find I have forgotten, and that is that all these amusements which I have indicated can be enjoyed in Ireland and can also be washed down at any hour of the day or night, afternoon or morning, with whatever alcoholic stimulant is available. While the Englishman has to wait for a drink, the Irishman can get one whenever he wants one. This sort of thing will not do, and I tell the Government that unless some attempt is made to establish something like firmness over in Ireland we shall hear a great deal of it in the near future.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): Your Lordships are aware that my noble friend Lord Rhondda is indisposed, and I am therefore charged with the duty of stating the reply for the Food Minister's Department. I will also reply for the Board of Trade, and for the officers who deal with horse racing and the price of cattle and petrol. It has been the policy of His Majesty's Government to apply the Defence of the Realm Regulations impartially in all parts of the United Kingdom having regard to the varying
172
conditions of different localities. Conditions in Ireland make it inexpedient or impracticable to apply precisely the same Regulations as may be suitable or desirable in other parts of the United Kingdom. I am not speaking only of political conditions, but of economic and general considerations which are permanent factors in Irish life, and which it would be imprudent to ignore in making Regulations with regard to Ireland. The application of these general principles may be traced in the particular matters to which my noble friend more particularly refers.
In the case of food control, in order to allow full weight to local needs considerable discretionary powers were given to the Food Control Committees set up by him in Great Britain. In Ireland he set up a Food Control Committee for the whole country to administer his Orders and to advise him on general questions arising out of those Orders. This Committee, in tendering advice to the Food Controller, has doubtless been influenced by practical considerations and by their intimate acquaintance with the local, political and economic situation in Ireland. The Food Controller has been guided by their views and those of the Irish Department with regard to the desirability of applying particular Orders to Ireland. Generally speaking, the great majority of the Orders made by the Food Controller apply to Ireland equally with Great Britain.
I will deal seriatim with certain articles of food to which my noble friend referred. In the first place I will take sugar. The only article of food on which the consumer in Ireland is rationed at present is sugar—as Lord Willoughby pointed out—the ration in this respect being the same as in Great Britain, namely 8 ozs. per head of the population per week. This system is based upon sugar cards similar to those used in this country. My noble friend's acquaintance who returned to these shores stuffed with sugar—I do not know how he looked after the process—clearly brought away by improper means sugar that should have gone to some consumer less fortunate than himself.
With regard to tea, the amount imported into Ireland is fixed on the same basis as that distributed in Great Britain. The amount imported is known to and controlled by the Food Ministry, and it may be stated that the quantity available for

173
consumption is equivalent per head of the population to the amount of tea released in Great Britain. Ireland, of course, is a country which takes more tea, and apparently also more beer, than England. With regard to meat, the fortnightly returns from butchers received by the Food Control Committee for Ireland demonstrate that, notwithstanding the large amount of beef production in the country, the average consumption is very considerably less than in England. It is therefore considered unnecessary to apply a system of card rationing to the public. The provisions of the Public Meals Order are applied throughout Ireland, though I do not doubt that there certain places in Ireland, as in this country, where the provisions of that Order are not completely carried into effect.
As to bacon, the intention of the Ministry of Food is to make Ireland self-supporting, with an exportable surplus to England; and with this end in view pigs coming into the market are apportioned between the Irish bacon factors and the British importers. Up to the present the Irish bacon factors have produced not only sufficient for Irish needs but a surplus, which has been regularly exported to Great Britain in addition to the live pigs above-mentioned. No definite statistics are available as to the amount of bacon consumed per head of the population in Ireland, inasmuch as a considerable quantity of American bacon has until recently been imported into Ireland, a stock of which is still on hand. Making due allowance for this, it is estimated that the consumption of bacon per head in Ireland is actually below the amount at present allowed under rations in England.
It is very difficult to estimate the quantity of butter and margarine consumed, inasmuch as small producers, who consume the butter they themselves make, do not send in any Returns. As far as can be estimated from the Returns available, and making an allowance for the quantity consumed by producers, the consumption of butter and margarine does not exceed six ounces per head per week; and as a set off against this, the consumption of other fats in Ireland is much less than the English allowance, lard and dripping being sparingly used by the agricultural population, who number two-thirds of the entire Irish inhabitants. By arrangement with
174
the Ministry of Food, a considerable amount of butter is being exported under licence, only such quantities being kept in Ireland as are required for home consumption. This export is estimated at 820,168 cwts. for the present year. I would remind your Lordships that in normal years Ireland has been a considerable importer of butter and margarine.
May I just mention the question of the prices of cattle before I deal with the subject of horse racing. In making Orders governing the price of cattle, the special circumstances of Ireland as a producing and exporting country have been taken into account, and it was not considered desirable or practicable to set up a method of local grading and distribution of cattle and meat, which was suited to the different conditions ruling in Great Britain. But the maximum prices fixed for dead meat are the same in Ireland as in Great Britain. The prices of live cattle in Ireland have been above those ruling in Great Britain. These prices have recently fallen. Arrangements have now been made whereby Irish cattle sent to this country for slaughter will be graded on arrival, and their prices fixed at the same rate as that applicable to Great Britain. They will then be subject to the same control as cattle produced in Great Britain, and this will remove the danger of abuse to which Lord Willoughby de Broke has referred.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Can the noble Earl tell us how the previous transactions were financed?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have not the remotest idea. Perhaps Lord Willoughby de Broke will send me a copy of the facts for investigation, and no doubt the officers of the Food Control Department, whose duty it is to watch questions of prices, will be able to investigate the subject.
As to the series of incidental interests in Irish life to which Lord Willoughby de Broke referred—whippet racing, cock fighting, and horse shows—I offer no comment on them except to point out that every one of your Lordships knows perfectly well that for years past Ireland has in certain respects occupied a privileged position, and, in spite of the war, continues to enjoy the doubtful privilege of some of these things which they consider to be the

175
amenities of life. Lord Willoughby de Broke is mistaken in his view about railway fares and the restrictions on travelling. These Regulations are exercised by the Ministry of Munitions, and that Department could forbid any race meeting which was likely to impede or delay the production, repair, or transport of war material, or any work necessary for the successful prosecution of the war.
In regard to horse racing, the position in Great Britain and that in Ireland is different. In Great Britain the position of the railways render restrictions in regard to racing necessary where it did not appear that similar restrictions were necessary in Ireland. Local meetings in this country have been prohibited on the ground that they were likely to impede or delay the production, repair, or transport of war material, or any work necessary for the successfu1 prosecution of the war, and it has been arranged that racing under the rules of the Jockey Club shall not be allowed except at Newmarket. These considerations do not apply to the same extent in Ireland, but the number of meetings under the control of the Irish Turf Club has been restricted by that body, and the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland is now being directed to the general position of horse racing in Ireland.
With regard to the bearing of this upon the railways themselves, I am informed that towards the end of 1916 the position of the British railway companies in regard to the conveyance of ordinary traffic became very difficult owing to the increase in the volume of traffic, to the fact that hundreds of locomotives and thousands of wagons were sent abroad for use in connection with the war, and owing to the release of large numbers of men for military service. It was accordingly necessary to take steps to restrict traffic as far as possible, and an Order was made under the Defence of the Realm Regulation 7 authorising the railway companies to raise their fares 50 per cent. This increase came into force on January 1, 1917. Since then the railway position has become more acute, and it was arranged last month that the season ticket rates should be increased by 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. according to whether they covered distances up to or over 12 miles. The Irish railways only came under Government control in January, 1917, and for some time after that—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What date did the noble Lord say for the Irish railways?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: January 1, 1917.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why not before?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will find out from the Board of Trade and inform the noble Marquess. I am answering for five different Departments, and I am afraid that I shall not be able to reply to cross-examination with very much original knowledge of my own. For some time after that date—that is January 1, 1917—control existed, but it did not appear that it was necessary to increase railway fares in Ireland. Conditions have now arisen, however, especially in regard to the necessity of reducing the consumption of coal by the Irish railways, which have altered the position, and steps are being taken to apply in Ireland practically the same conditions as regards railway fares and season tickets as are applied in England. It should be borne in mind that rolling stock has not been withdrawn from the Irish railways for use overseas as has been done here, the gauge on the Irish railways being different from that on the Continental railways.
The use of petrol is controlled by the Motor Spirit (Consolidation) and Gas Restriction Order, 1918. This Order applies to Ireland as well as to Great Britain, and is administered by the Police. In reply to a Question put in the House of Commons on June 5 last as to "whether the Regulations as to the use of petrol for purposes other than Government work are the same in Ireland as in Great Britain, and whether the Police in Ireland have the same strict instructions to prevent motoring for private purposes as are applied throughout the country districts of England, Scotland and Wales," the Chief Secretary for Ireland replied that "the answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative." As to petrol licences, no distinction is made between Great Britain and Ireland in so far as the allotments of petrol to consumers are concerned. Petrol licences are issued under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1916, and under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and, in the case of persons and firms in Ireland, are issued by the Petrol Control Department only on the

177
recommendation of the Petrol Committee (Ireland). The enforcement of the Petrol Regulations, as I stated, is entrusted to the Police, and I do not doubt that evasions exist, but the Police are doing their utmost to see that the Order is properly enforced.
From the foregoing statement it will be clear that His Majesty's Government have not applied to Ireland precisely the same Regulations as to Great Britain. Such action would be neither judicious nor impartial, but it has been their object, and it remains their intention, to secure as far as may be that the restrictions imposed by the war shall be equally shared by all parts of the United Kingdom, although the methods adopted may, and indeed must, be differentiated to meet varying conditions.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Earl opposite for the manner in which he has carried out his highly multifarious task in replying for I really do not know how many Departments, all no doubt represented by Ministers or quasi- Ministers in this House—at least I suppose they are—who might have taken my noble friend's place. But in spite of the care which he evidently gave to his reply, I am not quite sure that its contents will entirely satisfy the House.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Regarding it as an answer to the Question put by the noble Lord above the gangway, the reply, if the noble Earl will forgive my saving so, was of the most official kind. It was obviously the outcome of purely official care, and while it contained a certain number of admirable sentiments, yet I confess that I wish myself it had had more of the independent judgment of the noble Earl, who is so well qualified to examine any question of this kind from his own stores of knowledge and experience of affairs.
I have not much to say in comment, but on the one question of rationing it appears to me that the reply especially errs by its extremely official character. It seems to be assumed that if the consumption per head of a particular article of food in Ireland does not exceed or at any rate largely exceed the consumption of that same article in England there is no need to ration that article of food. Take, for
178
instance, the case of meat. As we all know in the South and West of Ireland there is a large proportion of the population who in ordinary times are not consumers of meat except on rare occasions. More meat, I hope, is eaten than used to be in the days when the meal of potatoes and "point," of which many of us have heard, formed the ordinary diet of a Connemara peasant; still the consumption among large numbers of the population is infinitely less than among those of a similar grade of life in this country. What is the use, therefore, of estimating the consumption per head? It is very useful, I dare say, from the point of view of the Food Controller's Office, but it does not touch the point, of which the noble Earl is quite as well aware as any of us here, that the object of rationing is not merely to bring down the consumption per head merely the whole nation, but to prevent a certain number of persons from consuming an undue proportion of the particular article; and it it be the case, as might be concluded, I think, from the arguments of the noble Lord above the gangway, that those who are in the habit in ordinary times of consuming meat in Ireland are now able to consume as much as they please, then I submit that the noble Earl has no answer to the Question put by the noble Lord, of a kind which will, I venture to think, satisfy the House.
The same argument applies to the consumption of butter. It is quite true that margarine has been imported into Ireland in the past, and that the whole production of butter there was by no means consumed in Ireland itself. We know very well that Ireland has been one of the principal sources of supply for this country, and I admit that a considerable amount of butter is exported from the Smith of Ireland now. But there, again, the fact is not touched that unless some limitation is put upon the consumption of those who desire to consume too largely for these times, people are allowed to perform the anti-social act of excessive consumption from which they are debarred in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Food Control Regulations.
As regards the grading of cattle, I was glad to hear the noble Earl ask Lord Willoughby de Broke to supply him with a statement on which he founded the remarkable picture which was drawn of Irish dealers apparently buying animals at enormous prices in Ireland and shipping theta at an obvious loss to England, where

179
they would have to be sold at a very much lower figure. We shall all be very much interested to hear what the explanation of that mystery is. But I am glad to know that the grading of Irish stores is now arranged for. I venture to think that it ought to have been done two years ago at least, if not sooner, and I know no conceivable reason why it was not done.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am afraid I must have misled the noble Marquess. The words I used were that arrangements have now been made whereby Irish cattle sent to this country for slaughter would be graded on arrival.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Store cattle are not to be graded; only fat or semi-fat cattle are to be graded. Well, I am very sorry that all Irish cattle are not to be graded.
As regards the question of railway restrictions, it is no doubt quite true—and it is a point for which sufficient allowance ought certainly to be made—that where the conditions, whether of the making of munitions or of other necessary manufactures, do not interfere with railway traffic in the same way that they do in most parts of England, there is not the same reason for applying the same iron restrictions for railway traffic as have to be applied here. This we should all admit. On the other hand it has to be remembered that indiscriminate railway travelling, supposing that it exists, whether for race meetings or for any other purpose, does mean an increased consumption and waste of coal, and that there may be in some instances in Ireland a case for regulation and restriction.
I do not speak with any particular information as to the Regulations which are now applied at any rate in some of the principal cities of Ireland to the restriction of the drink traffic, but it is worth while, I think, to call attention to the very remarkable facts and figures in the Return supplied by Lord D'Abernon's Department here—facts and figures which would be confirmed not only by the Metropolitan Police, but, I am sure, by the Police all over England and Scotland—namely, as to the beneficial effects, from the point of view of the prevention of crime of all kinds, of the drastic restrictions which have been imposed upon the consumption of liquor in this country. It might be fairly assumed that similar results would follow some parallel application all through Ireland.
180
But without dwelling on that, I merely wish to say, in conclusion, that the noble Earl does not seem to have apprehended what I conceive to be one of the principal arguments employed by Lord Willoughby de Broke—namely, that what is resented in this country by a great many people is not the fact that in certain directions Ireland may be more fortunately situated than this country is—for instance, in the fact of its not being necessary in all cases to comply with restrictions—but there do seem to be causeless and unexplained differences between the conditions in the two countries. It is important that the good will of this country towards Ireland, which we all desire to see developed, but which, as we know, has many difficulties to encounter in the matter of military service in Ireland, should not be more hampered and interfered with than is necessary, by a sense among the working people of this country that they are being more rigorously treated than those of the same class in Ireland. I wish that the noble Earl had been able to do a little more to dispel that sentiment, which, I am afraid, is becoming rather widely spread, and which may have somewhat disastrous results when we have to consider, as we soon shall, the future relations between the two countries.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, it is a very curious thing that there is always something comic or something tragic whenever the British Government attempt to handle affairs in Ireland. On this occasion, in my opinion, the comic element is uppermost. I have seldom heard anything more amusing, than the remarks of Lord Crawford. What he said really was that the government of Ireland was a question of expediency. That is true. I remember the Leader of the House telling us a short time ago that they left the state of affairs in Clare until the people should see that something must be done; it was to get so bad that really something must be done. I remember expostulating with him afterwards, and he said "You may say it is a bad policy, but it is a policy." I say it is a very bad policy.
What did the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal say in reply to Lord Willoughby de Broke? He spoke about sending Orders to Ireland. Who is going to obey them? Nobody. You may send what Orders

181
you like to Ireland, they will not obey them. He spoke about the Regulations to be applied to racing. Yes, those Regulations have all been sent over, but they have never been enforced, and there is no intention of enforcing any of the Orders that have been sent over to Ireland. He said the Minister of Munitions is the person who can stop racing. You do not suppose for one moment that the Minister of Munitions or anybody else is going to stop racing and make the racing in Ireland the same thing as it is in England. The whole thing is totally different. The whole legislation with regard to Ireland since the war began is absolutely different from that of England, because the Government are in a fright about Ireland and do not like to enact any law for fear that sedition may get strong again.
Then the noble Earl said, "Authority is being directed to call attention to racing." "Authority is being directed"; they will call attention to it, but nothing whatever will be done. Everything that my noble friend said is absolutely true. The circumstances are totally different. And I warn the Government that the working men of this country are getting very irritated about this, more particularly the men up to fifty-one who are being conscripted. They were promised that Ireland should be brought in, too; but they know that there is no intention, now or hereafter, as long as this Government is in power, to conscript Ireland; otherwise the Government would not have brought in the two Bills together. They know that the Home Rule Bill must pass first, because there is no registration or other machinery which is necessary, and which would take months to organise, before you can have conscription. The whole thing is comic; and it is much better that the country should know the truth about it.
A few weeks ago I called attention to the fact that nearly every Bill that has been brought in since the war has had placed on the outside, "This Bill does not apply to Ireland." The Government had much better put that with regard to the whole of the questions raised by my noble friend; because, although Lord Crawford gave an answer and spoke about Orders, and about authority, and about being empowered, he knows perfectly well that not one of these things will be enforced. If that is so, then why not say so? I do not know how long the Government are
182
going on with this policy in regard to Ireland, but it is very unfair not only to the loyalists but to the disloyalists. You are going to bring in a Home Rule Bill which you well know the Irish will not accept. It is to be brought in by two Unionist Members; and as sure as I stand here the Irish will say, "You are bringing in a Bill which you know we will not accept." It is better for us, at any rate in this House, to recognise the true state of Ireland. The British Government is afraid to enforce law and order there. The whole position will go back to where it was before in the old days; you may have to go back to coercion; but one thing is certain—namely, that the working men of this country, of America, and of the Dominions, will never support any suggestion of Home Rule for Ireland under present conditions.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I think we have much reason to be indebted to Lord Willoughby de Broke for having brought this subject before us; all the more so in view of the fact that we live in days when Irish grievances and Irish disabilities have ceased to be purely Irish questions—they are no longer even British questions or United Kingdom questions alone—they are not only even Imperial questions; they have become international and world questions. So also have Irish privileges, exemptions, preferences, advantages, and monopolies, fair and unfair; and so also have Irish failures of duty.
I think it was on a recent occasion that there was a speech to a German-Irish Society in Germany by a German nobleman—who, I believe, is an Under-Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office—who said that "a free Ireland would mean the freedom of the seas," and he amplified and elaborated that statement by saying that "a German alliance with a free Ireland would permanently secure the connection between Germany and her colonial possessions in Africa." Why do I bring in that statement? Because the foundation of the tactical reply which was given by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government—I say the "tactical" reply because, although much sympathy is due to the noble Earl in the difficulty he has in giving an answer, it remains nevertheless the fact that the Government gain great tactical advantages by saying, "Oh, this concerns so many Departments that in no single answer can

183
a full responsible reply be given to a Question"—the foundation of the noble Earl's answer really was that you must from practical and economic considerations practically give independence to Ireland in all these questions; and he said that the whole question had been handed over to an independent Irish Committee, on which he was not in a position to say that anybody had seen to it that there should be a majority of people who wanted to win the war. Who can wonder in these circumstances if the administration of all these questions by that Committee proceeds entirely from the point of view that Irish considerations, Irish comfort, and Irish convenience should alone be considered?
I think your Lordships must see that in the answers given by the noble Earl with regard to every one of the particulars put forward in Lord Willoughby de Broke's Question, attention has been paid to Irish comfort and not to the interests of the Empire or the interests of the Allies. Let us take the question of railway travelling. Railway travelling in Great Britain has been drastically restricted. It has not been restricted as regards race trains alone; it has not been restricted for the sole purpose of preventing interference with the manufacture of munitions; it has been restricted upon the equally important ground that the consumption of coal must be economised as much as possible. And when you come to the case of Ireland, I suppose that country subsists to a considerable extent upon coal brought over sea from Scotland and possibly from Wales; so that in Ireland it is a very serious tonnage question as well as a question of munitions and coal supply.
Let us take the question of petrol. Here we are told that there "may have been evasions," but that "the administration is in the hands of the Police, who see to it," etc., etc., that there shall be no more than an unavoidable number of evasions. Now this is one respect in which the Government cannot say they are hampered in Ireland. In Ireland Police administration is not, as it is in this country, municipal. There at least they have a centralised authority, and ought to be able to see to it that no petrol gets into the hands of people who cannot show a public ground for using petrol, and that still less should it get into the hands of people who are going to use it for unlawful and criminal purposes. Let us think of
184
the importance of the question of the misuse or excessive use of petrol in Ireland, not only as regards provoking discontent in Great Britain. Petrol is a world question of the very greatest imprtance. I have little doubt that in the United States of America, in the territories of our Allies, and in our Dominons, people are being asked at this moment to undergo restrictions in the use of petrol; and this is a time when the civilised world is asked to look on while there is this unrestricted excessive indulgence in joy-riding and criminal riding in petrol-driven cars in Ireland. So much for railway travelling and petrol.
In respect to horse racing we are told that the same Regulations have been—what? Have been applied to Ireland. But there is a judicious reticence as to whether the applied Regulations have also been enforced. So it seems always to be. Here you have a country which asks for Home Rule. Since 1898 the Nationalist and Home Rule Party in Ireland has had ascendancy in municipal affairs, and it has known how to use it; since 1906, with the advent of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Ministry to power, it has had practical ascendancy in Ireland in Imperial affairs; it has all the practical advantages (if there by any) of Home Rule, and it has also had the advantage, of being able to govern Great Britain as well. I submit that these are not times in which to present this dismal spectacle to our Allies who are fighting with us in this terrible struggle, and that some greater effort should be made to demonstrate to them that Ireland is herself equal to showing a little of the spirit of sacrifice which is being asked in so large a measure from communities at least as entitled to consideration as Ireland.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend opposite will understand that we do not hold him responsible for what has been done in Ireland in connection with these matters. He is the mouthpiece of the Government on this occasion, and has told us quite frankly that he is speaking only from a brief supplied to him, I think, by six different Departments. As my noble friend who has just sat down has rightly said, that really is a great tactical advantage to the Government, and I think this House is very for bearing in the way in which it allows the Government quite constantly to deal with very important, matters like this without

185
any adequate knowledge behind the speaker who is put up by the Government.
I think my noble friend who has just sat down was also quite right in drawing attention to the key note of the apologia of my noble friend opposite (Lord Crawford), only that my noble friend behind me (Lord Stuart of Wortley) left out the most important word. He quoted my noble friend opposite as saying that these matters had been regulated by practical and economic considerations. I think, unless I am mistaken, he also said "political" considerations, and political considerations really are the foundation stone of the whole situation. I will come back to that presently. I want to emphasise what my noble friend Lord Crewe said as to the inadequate nature of the defence offered by the Department which my noble friend opposite quoted—that the consumption of these various articles that are rationed in Great Britain was not greater per head in Ireland than in England. Lord Crewe entirely disproved that argument. He pointed out that a very large proportion of the Irish population never ate these things in normal times, and the question is not whether Ireland is not eating a greater proportion of meat per head of the population than Great Britain, but whether Mr. de Valera and his chosen friends are living without restriction and at perfect ease while my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government, like all of us here, are strictly rationed. I believe that to be the case, and also that Unionists are naturally taking advantage of the same facilities, and, if they are well-to-do persons accustomed to eat meat and enjoy better living than the Connemara peasants, are enjoying at the present moment much better conditions than anybody in Scotland or England is allowed to enjoy.
Then I come to the question of the cattle, about which my noble friend no doubt quite accurately professed ignorance. I hope before I have finished to interest him in the matter. I am not in a position of my own knowledge to say that what I am going to mention is the case. I have not the means of proving it, but I want him to find out whether my information is well or badly founded. He admits that there has been no such restriction of the price of store cattle in Ireland as there is in Scotland, Wales, and England. What has resulted from this is that when the military authorities went in to buy store cattle and treat
186
them as being fit for the market and kill them and put them into store for future use, they paid a much higher price to the Irish farmer than to the English or Scottish farmer. That is not all. Lord Crewe and Lord Willoughby de Broke both alluded to the remarkable case of store cattle bought in Ireland at a much higher price than they would fetch in England, and then being shipped to England and sold on the English scale at a loss. Who bore that loss? That is what I want my noble friend to explain. I am told that the loss is concealed in the Vote of Credit, and that the Vote of Credit is actually being used at one and the same time to keep down prices in England and to see that the Irish farmer who sells the cattle does not suffer. In fact, the Irish farmer is treated in this matter with an indulgence and a privilege for which I can find no justification.
Next I come to the question of petrol. I will relate to the House a story which was told to me by an officer who has just returned from Ireland, and who. I believe, is a perfectly credible person. He had his own private motor car in Ireland, and had considerable difficulty in getting petrol until he was advised by a friend "in the know" that the place he could get petrol from was the Sinn Fein office, and he did. The fact is that in the régime of the late Chief Secretary not only was the whole Government in Ireland allowed to fail into the hands of the most disloyal and rebel section of the people in Ireland, not only did the King's Writ not run in the ordinary acceptance of the term, but with a view—to me it always seemed an insane view—of creating an atmosphere in which something perfectly incomprehensible was to occur, the Irish were treated on the whole question of war conditions as pampered and privileged persons. The very part of the United Kingdom which has done least for the Empire and liberty and has caused the most anxiety is the very portion of the Empire singled out for particular favoritism.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have very little further to say, but I should like in the first place to reply to Lord Stuart of Wortley, who asked about the Irish Food Committee and indicated that no pains had been taken to ascertain whether these gentlemen were even in favour of winning the war. Unfortunately I cannot at the moment get the list of that Committee, but I am reminded that the

187
Chairman is Mr. Wrench, who is very well known to many of your Lordships. Sir Thomas Stafford is a member of the Committee, and Lord Granard takes an important part. The liaison officer is Mr. Sanderson, the son of another very old friend of many of your Lordships, Colonel E. Sanderson, and I have no doubt that this Committee is composed of gentlemen of perfectly unimpeachable patriotism. I very much regret if anything in my reply gave an impression that it was a Committee in which Lord Rhondda, who appointed it, did not retain the fullest confidence.
I personally entirely disagree with the view of the noble Marquess opposite that meat ought to be rationed in Ireland. Prima facie I had thought that it ought to be, but in view of the fact that the consumption of meat in Ireland per head of the population is so much smaller than in this country, I think the case for meat rationing goes. Meat rationing was not introduced into this country, nor sugar rationing either, in order to give an intellectual or patriotic stimulus to the artizan of this country. Card rationing was introduced in order to save food, and for no other reason. What is going to be the result of introducing meat rationing into Ireland? You are going to increase consumption at once. At the present moment everybody in this country is entitled to his quota, and I am glad to say that the meat card represents a quota that has always been honoured. The meat ticket is always honoured. We cannot introduce the meat ticket into Ireland on a lower scale of consumption than applies to Scotland or England. The result is that if you introduce it into Ireland on a higher scale than present consumption there would be a net increase in consumption. That equally applies to any other articles—butter, for instance—of which the consumption in Ireland is smaller than in this country. Therefore, I oppose it; and, what is more, I do not think that any case has been oracle out to place upon Ireland the enormous worry and burden and the expenditure of time, energy, and money which would be involved in applying a meat rationing system to a country of which only a very small proportion is urban in its character. That is why I think the answer about rationing is complete. Whether it is necessary to make Ireland share our hardships or not is a question of high policy on which I offer no opinion, but about which perhaps to-morrow or the
188
day after a relevant debate might occur. Solely from the point of view of food conservation—and that is the problem with which the Food Minister here is closely concerned—I am quite certain it would be unwise to apply meat or butter rationing to Ireland, in view of the fact that consumption is so low.

STATE CONTROL OF MILK.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to call attention to the statement of Mr. Clynes that the Ministry of Food have accepted the recommendations of the Astor Committee (State Control of Milk), and to move to resolve "That this House disapproves of such control."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to draw the attention of the Government to a statement which has been made by the Secretary of the Ministry of Food. Speaking the other day Mr. Clynes said—
"In order to avoid unnecessary transport and overlapping in distribution, I have accepted the recommendation of the Committee so ably presided over by Major Astor."
That Committee up to the present moment has published two Reports, and I have been given to understand that another Report has already been presented, although it has not been printed and circulated to members of either House. All we have to go by is what the Committee have already recommended. In some places the Reports are rather contradictory, but, so far as one is able to gather, it would appear that the principal recommendation is that milk depôts should be established throughout the length and breadth of the country; and the Committee say that if these depôts were established, if the milk were sent from the farm to properly-equipped depôts, the exact quantities wanted by retailers could be despatched, and the surplus disposed of without worry or loss by the producer or distributor.
It would seem that the suggestion is that the Government should take over the wholesale supply of milk to the retailers in the different parts of the country—that the farmers no longer should be allowed to send their milk direct to the great town or direct to any large wholesale business. Instead of that, it is suggested that the milk should be collected from the farmers by a Government Department, the Ministry of Food. The Committee go on to explain what they mean as regards these depôts,

189
showing they mean depots established by Government Departments, because they say the Committee are convinced that nothing approaching the minimum of depots required could be established in time to affect the situation this winter or even next summer. I should have thought that if these depots were to be established, there is time even now to establish then before next winter. There is also the suggestion that the depots might be established by subsidised societies such as the Agricultural Organisation Society, and also that the Board of Agriculture might set up these depots. If that were done the suggestion is that there would be better and more milk, more cheese, and more butter.
Apparently, these depots are not merely to be large collecting stations, but are also to be large manufactories where milk will be turned into butter and into cheese. The Government, on these conditions, would be going in for very large trading indeed. That seems to be the decision which Mr. Clynes says the Government, or rather the Ministry of Food, have accepted in the Report of the Astor Committee. If, of course, the Committee had only said "We mean to have supervision, but not control," that would be a very different matter, because I am the last one to say that in present conditions it might not be necessary to have supervision. That, however, is a very different thing from taking over, as seems to be the desire of the Astor Committee whose recommendation has been approved by Mr. Clynes. He also goes further and says—
"This decision has been accepted unanimously by the Consumers Council after full discussion. It is agreed, therefore, that the Minister must become responsible for the wholesale collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk."
I think this is a very large order indeed. If the Government is to be responsible for wholesale collection, it means collecting the milk from the producers throughout the length and breadth of the country. Apparently, it would go to the depots which the Committee recommend should be established; but Mr. Clynes seems to go further, because he speaks of utilisation. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Crawford—who according to the communiqué in The Times this morning is going to reply—will explain not only what wholesale collection means but also the meaning of "utilisation." Apparently, utilisation would take the form of great Government factories to make butter and cheese, and also to reduce milk
190
into that powder which has been found so very useful in order that milk may be stored and kept where there is too large an amount for use in the winter. That, no doubt, is a very valuable utilisation of milk.
Then as regards distribution. It would seem that the idea is that from these depots milk should be distributed not to wholesale people but to the retailer in every large district—and in every village, I suppose. I venture to ask the noble Earl if he will say how it is that the Ministry of Food apparently never consulted the Consumers Council in this matter. Surely some attention should be given to the producers in this question. At the present moment there is actually, I understand, an Agricultural Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Food, which was set up some little while ago. I was given to understand that Mr. Prothero had put on the Advisory Committee members from the Board of Agriculture. Certainly it was stated at the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, as an inducement to them to depart from a long-standing rule that they would never go on any Committee or join a deputation—they preferred to act independently—that on this particular Committee the Board of Agriculture would be represented. Whether it was represented or not, how is t that Mr. Clynes did not take the trouble to consult that Committee in this matter? I have been told that when he made this statement the question had never come before them at all, so that they had no opportunity to make any pronouncement upon the matter. Surely it seems a great neglect on the part of the Ministry of Food not to wait until a report was made to them.
I think that some attention might have been paid by Mr. Clynes to a resolution that he must have had in his hand before he made his speech announcing that the Government were going to take over the control and distribution of the milk supply in this country. My noble friend Lord Selborne is Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and only last Tuesday that body passed the following resolution—
"That the Government be requested to come to no decision for placing milk distribution in the hands of a Government Department without informing the agricultural community and hearing their views."
Surely that is a very moderate request to make. Yet the Ministry of Food have, apparently, treated it with absolute con-

191
tempt, and have not endeavoured to find out what are the views of the agricultural community as represented by the Central Chamber of Agriculture in this matter, or consulted the Agricultural Advisory Committee to the Ministry of Food.
I think that some explanation is required from the Ministry of Food with regard to what Mr. Clynes said about retain distribution. He said—
"With regard to the point raised about retail distribution, I can only for the moment say that I think we must look more and more to our municipal authorities to accept greater responsibility in this matter than they have yet done. … Retail distribution of milk from street to street, and from house to house, is an urgent and important matter."
That evidently seems to be what is in Mr. Clynes's mind, but whether it is in the mind of Lord Rhondda I very much doubt. We all regret that Lord Rhondda is unable to be here and give his own explanation in this matter; and unable to control what is going on at the Ministry of Food. If the statement means anything, it means that Mr. Clynes is looking forward not only to the wholesale collection and distribution of milk but to retailing milk as well, if not by a Government Department, then by municipalities. If it is "an urgent and important matter" I suppose Mr. Clynes, if he is allowed to do so, will proceed to set up not only wholesale depots but retail depots throughout the country, or get municipalities to set them up. It may be right or wrong to eliminate the small man and the trader entirely. We have often heard that the middleman should be eliminated, but up to now we have never heard a Minister say that the retailer should be eliminated by the Government or the municipality. I suppose the fact is that we have a Labour Member, a distinguished and able man, who has an opportunity of advocating the views which he held before he was a Minister, and is trying to induce the Government to adopt those views and accept the municipalisation of milk, wholesale and retail.
I should also like to refer to the question as to how this matter affects those large combinations of farmers set up all over the country, many of them in connection with the Agricultural Organisation Society, of which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is President. The other day, at a meeting immediately following the speech of Mr. Clynes, the Dairy Committee of the
192
Agricultural Organisation passed the following resolution—
"The Dairy Committee of the A.O.S. anxiously awaits an assurance from the Ministry of Food that their intention is not to take over, but to supervise the wholesale collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk. They would strongly urge that the taking over of the wholesale trade in milk will deal a serious blow to the organisation of agriculture and to the present co-operative dairy societies."
I think that goes without saying, under the proposal as outlined by Mr. Clynes. What would be the position of such societies under the proposal? At the present moment in the case of a sale of milk by the farmer direct to the retailer, the retailer paying the producer's price to the fanner retains for himself both the wholesaler's and retailer's profits. There are also the cases where a combination of farmers, who are affiliated with the Agricultural Organisation Society or the co-operative dairy societies, get their milk disposed of and sent either to the wholesaler or retailer as the case may be. Some of these societies, owing to the economical methods of business have been able to sell at such prices that the retailer in Leicestershire, Wiltshire, and Hampshire, has been able to sell milk under the Government's maximum price. That, of course, is a great advantage to the consumer.
Should the State become the controller of all milk supplies there will be a great danger that the predominating interest of the consumer will dictate a policy of low prices and insist on the farmer selling at a price which he would not think remunerative. The farmer would reply by decreasing the amount of milk he produced, and there would be no advantage gained in the long run. It would be a great pity if anything were done by the Government to discourage private enterprise in this matter, or to discourage farmers from combining together in great co-operative associations not only for the distribution of milk but for making cheese and butter, which apparently Major Astor's Committee proposes to undertake.
There are, of course, further objections to this—objections which I have heard in this House, namely, the danger of creating a great bureaucracy and a larger number of staffs. I notice that Mr. Clynes boasted, apparently with the greatest pleasure, that the Food Ministry, which only a year ago numbered about 400, had now risen to 4,350. That was simply the central staff

193
in London, and he added that the provincial staff now amounted to 2,339, of whom 1,305 may be described as higher officials. All these gentlemen are not doing work for nothing, and the meaning is that there is a large expenditure. I do not know whether there has been any report of the Public Accounts Committee in connection with the Ministry of Food, but we have lately been horrified to see that when the Auditor-General examined the accounts of the munitions and aircraft factories there were large discrepancies and gross expenditure of every kind. One fears that when these enormous Government Departments are set up we shall have the same things going on in the Ministry of Food which have apparently gone on in the Ministry of Munitions. The effect of this State control will be that there will be a combination of political and bureaucratic influences; gigantic Government offices filled with persons mostly without training but securely drawing their salaries; details left to officials who would suffer no pecuniary penalty in the case of financial loss, and prices raised or reduced according to the political requirements of the Government of the day.
In a communication this morning from the Ministry of Food I notice it was stated—
"Lord Crawford will reply for the Ministry of Food, which has not only considered the question of control but also of purchasing the milk supply—policy which has been recommended by a sub-committee of the Ministry. We understand that it is very unlikely that purchase will be decided upon, but that a far-reaching system of control will be created, as in the case of other essential foods. The dearth of supply during the coming winter is regarded as inevitable and equitable distribution is a national necessity."
There may be a dearth of milk in the coming winter if the Ministry of Food treats this question as it has treated every other. Whenever the Government has interfered in the question of prices, at once there has been a dearth or a total stoppage of the supply, as in the case of butter. Lord Rhondda himself told me that he had deliberately fixed the price of butter at such a figure that it should not be worth while making it. In consequence, in certain districts where they could only make butter and there were no facilities for transportation the butter was thrown back absolutely upon the producers because it could not be sold.
As regards the question of milk supply prices, what an extraordinary position the Ministry of Food have taken up! No one
194
who understands anything of dairying in this country will contradict me when I say that May is one of the most difficult months in which to produce milk; yet for May the Ministry fixed the price at 1s. a gallon, while in June, when it is much easier to get a supply of milk, they raised it to 1s. 4d. a gallon, a price for which the farmers themselves did not ask. You really cannot tell what is to be the policy which will guide this Ministry. At one time they say they will put a price on milk so that it will not be worth while for a farmer to have a supply of milk, and at another time they put on a price which, of course, the farmer is delighted to have, but which he has never asked for. It was much more necessary to have the price of 1s. 4d. a gallon in May than it was in June. All I am asking the noble Earl, who is, I see, to reply to me, is whether he means by "control" merely supervision. If he means only supervision, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I have no objection to it. I quite admit it to be necessary. If, on the other hand, the Government mean what Mr. Clynes said the Government intended to do—namely, that they were to be responsible for the wholesale collection and distribution of milk—I think that is going a very long way on the road to State Socialism, which no doubt is quite approved by Mr. Clynes and other Labour Members. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think it may be convenient, before the noble Earl opposite replies, if I say what I have to say. I will allude first of all to a point which my noble friend raised at the beginning of his remarks when he said that he thought it was very unfortunate that the Food Control Department consulted the Consumers Council on this matter and then came to a decision without consulting anybody connected with the producers, although there was actually in existence an Advisory Agriculture Committee of the Food Control Department. I came a couple of hours ago from a meeting of that Advisory Committee, of which I happen to be a member, at which this matter was being discussed. I desire to speak with the greatest respect of Mr. Clynes, for whose devotion and ability we are all grateful, but I think that it was a very unfortunate think that he should have announced to Parliament that the Government had decided to take certain action on the

195
Report of Major Astor's Committee and sub-Committee after consulting the Consumers Council and before any consultation had taken place with the representatives of agriculture. I think that was a tactical blunder which I hope will not be repeated. The agriculturists have been consulted today, and no doubt the Food Controller might modify his policy, if he thought fit, in accordance with the advice that he has received. But surely the only right course is for the Food Controller to consult both the producers and the consumers and then to announce his policy. We do not expect him always to take our advice, but it certainly will tend to friction and to results which we all deplore if the producers are only consulted after a policy has been announced to the House of Commons. I hope very much that will never occur again.
I want to ask my noble friend to make it quite clear to the House how much of the Report of Major Astor's Committee and sub-Committee it is contemplated to adopt. I ask that question after hearing the discussion this afternoon. The Report is a very long one, and it is not quite clear—at least it was not quite clear to me—where the policy of His Majesty's Government ended and the recommendations of the Astor Committee began; or, to put it the other way, where the recommendations of the Committee ended and the policy to be adopted by the Government began.
There are three main matters involved in the Report of the Astor Committee and sub-Committee. The first is that it is absolutely necessary for the Government to supervise the distribution of milk in the coming winter in order that, in the first place, every locality may have its fair share; and, secondly, to avoid a direct waste of railway service in sending milk criss-cross about the country. The second point is that the milk combine is a public danger, and that the Government must intervene to prevent it dominating the whole of the milk trade. The third suggestion is that the proper people to step into the shoes of the milk combine, not only now but permanently after the war, is a Government Department, to be solely and exclusively responsible for the wholesale and retail distribution of milk throughout Great Britain—I suppose not Ireland. I hope that it will be made quite clear by my noble friend opposite that the Government do not
196
ask us, and will not ask us now, to give our assent to that particular proposition. It is not unreasonable to ask us to admit that the Government must for the benefit of the population control the distribution of milk during the progress of the war, and it is also quite a reasonable proposition to say that the Government must take steps to prevent the whole milk trade getting into the hands of a great combine—I do not think it will be found that producers any more than consumers will be wishful to do otherwise than help the Government in dealing with these two matters—but if we are to be asked now to take a step which is deliberately intended to make a Department of His Majesty's Government the only permanent agency for the distribution of milk wholesale or retail in this country we certainly are not at present prepared to give our assent to any such proposition.
I will not go into all the large questions involved in such an idea. I only want to allude to one argument which I understood Mr. Clynes to use as persuasive to the adoption of such a policy. I understood Mr. Clynes to lay stress on the amount of loss of power and waste of money that there was at present in the competition of a great number of small businesses, and in the circumstance that more than one cart went into the same street, and that milk was sent from Gloucester to London and from Hertfordshire to Bristol, and that kind of thing. I do not doubt that all this is true. But allowing for the amount of waste—and make that allowance as much as you like—after our present experience it would be a matter of absolute incredibility to any member of this House that a Government Department is ever going to do this business cheaper or more economically than the private trader. That is the one thing, after our experiences in this war, that we are not prepared to believe.
I wish to say one thing more, and that is about the co-operative societies, in regard to which my noble friend spoke. Many of us think that the spread of co-operative societies is going to be a great gain not only to the English farmer of every grade, but also to the consumer, because with the proper organisation of agriculture the goods ought to be delivered on the average in better quality, under better conditions, and at a cheaper rate than the average individual farmer can do it. All that is true of nothing more than the milk societies

197
and creameries, and if anything the Government did now tended to discourage the co-operative movement, much more if it tended to destroy any of the co-operative societies already in existence, the result would, I believe, be a lamentable one, and not one, I am quite sure, which my noble friend opposite or any member of the Government would wish to bring about. Therefore I hope he will tell us that in any action which the Food Control Department think it necessary to take in this matter, they will be very tender of the welfare of the Agricultural Organisation Society and the co-operative societies.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I think it may be for your convenience if I make a rather general statement leading up to the Report to which Lord Selborne has just referred, and summarising in a brief manner the considerations which have actuated the Food Controller. Before dealing with the points raised by Lord Strachie, I should like to state that this Committee to which reference has been made was appointed in April, 1917, on the instruction of the Cabinet, by the President of the Board of Agriculture with the concurrence of the Food Controller. The terms of reference were—
To report on the production and distribution of milk, including the consideration of the steps which should be taken (1) to stimulate production; (2) to conserve milk supplies during any period of excess; (3) to provide for the special needs of children in urban centres; (4) to effect economies in the cost of production and distribution; (5) to organise supplies by administrative action so as to reach all sections of the community; and (6) other kindred subjects.
The reference clearly was very wide, and in June of last year the Committee issued a first interim Report, in which they dealt, in the main, with the disposal of surplus summer milk; with the utilisation of milk so as to preserve to the nation the maximum amount of food constituents obtainable; with the relation that the retail price of milk ought to bear to the prices of milk products, beef, and feeding-stuffs, and with farm labour.
In November the Committee issued a further interim Report dealing with the causes of possible milk shortage, the supply and distribution of feeding-stuffs, the price of milk, preferential distribution, the loss of
198
milk through souring, the preservation of milk by Pasteurisation, and the establishment of county milk depots. On February 20 of this year, Major Astor, the Chairman of this Committee, wrote to Lord Rhondda as follows—
"With regard to the control of the wholesale distribution of milk, the Committee venture to forward certain resolutions bearing on this point for the consideration of the Ministry.
"The Committee feel that, as staple articles of food are rationed, people will tend to fall back on non-rationed foods to mike up for deficiencies or reductions in their accustomed diet. When meat, butter, and possibly bread are rationed, adults are likely to take more milk. This may not make much difference in the summer, but may have serious consequences next winter when milk is scarce.
"In view of the perishable nature of milk, the Committee suggest that the feasibility of rationing it on some basis of priority be considered carefully by that section of the Ministry which is specially experienced in rationing and its organisation.
"The Committee desire, however, to urge that even if milk is not rationed it is essential before next winter to have the milk that is available more evenly distributed between districts than is possible under existing conditions under which the trade is carried on; and therefore whether rationed or not its distribution should, in the opinion of the Committee, be controlled. The Committee consider the application of such control a matter of immediate urgency."
The Resolutions mentioned in this letter were as follows:—

"(1) That with a view to the establishment of depots on such a scale as would materially increase the available supply of milk and milk products next autumn and winter, the Government be urged to take over the entire responsibility for them.

"(2) That the Government should through the Milk Section of the Ministry of Food take over the direct control of the wholesale collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk.

"(3) That Local Food Control Committees should continue to be responsible for the control of the retail distribution, provided that where it was thought desirable or necessary in England and Wales the county borough council (or in London the London County Council) should be empowered to undertake the retail distribution or to give a renewable licence, subject to the Ministry's approval, to a private company for the monopoly of such retail distribution within their areas.

"(4) That, as regards areas in England and Wales which are neither county borough councils, nor the London County Council, the Committee are not yet prepared to make recommendations for meeting the proposals contained in the latter part of the foregoing resolution. Nor are they in a position to make recommendations as to what authorities should deal with the matter in Scotland and Ireland. The Committee desire, to suggest that action on the recommendations contained in Resolutions (1) and (2) should not be delayed.

"(5) That at initiation the Ministry of Food should authorise, by licensing the direct sale by certain producers to retailers or consumers."

199
To this a reply was sent stating that Lord Rhondda would be glad if the Committee would take into more detailed consideration the putting into operation of their general proposals, and would make such recommendations as they might consider advisable. They were asked to direct their special attention to the following points: (1) the need for establishing new depots and the geographical allocation of such depots; (2) the immediate steps necessary for the control of the collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk sold wholesale.
Accordingly, after consultation with the Ministry of Food, a sub-Committee of the Astor Committee was appointed to investigate these matters. It has recently reported to the Main Committee, and, in forwarding their resolutions, Major Astor states—
"We trust that the Government may now be prepared to give effect to the recommendations made by us in February to control the wholesale distribution of milk as a temporary measure in view of the further information which we are now able to offer them as to the methods by which these recommendations may be carried out."
Major Astor continued—
"On the evidence now before us we are not prepared to agree to the desirability of purchases recommended in paragraph 8 of the Report of the sub-Committee—"
that is, the purchase of milk businesses—
We believe that before coming to any decision as to the desirability of such a step more evidence is required."
Major Astor also says that in the opinion of his Committee the Government should examine the possibility and advisability and also the conditions of compensating the interests concerned for any damage clone to them by control without actually purchasing such interests.
Mr. Clynes agrees with the views expressed by Major Astor's Committee, and the precise machinery for effecting the control of the wholesale milk trade is now being considered. It may be taken for granted that it will include the establishment of a Milk Clearing House at headquarters similar to the Margarine Clearing House which has been set up with satisfactory results; and that there will be divisional milk inspectors such as have been appointed by other Departments. The scheme has been submitted to the Consumers Council, who favour it, and the Agricultural Advisory Committee are being consulted about it. I understand that that Committee has
200
unanimously approved the principle of control of the wholesale trade. It may, however, be assumed that what the producer most requires is an attractive price. There is no reason why the recommendations of the Astor Committee to the Food Controller should not be laid before Parliament. But it will probably be better to defer doing this until some definite indication can be given of the lines on which control will proceed.
The reasons which have led to this decision may be stated briefly as follows:—(a) The wasteful competition in the collection and handling of milk by superfluous depots or factories situated in the same area; (b) the diversion from areas that geographically should feed large towns; (c) the difficulty in properly adjusting the amounts of milk that are required (1) for the manufacture of milk products, (2) for human consumption; (d) the need for a proper organisation to balance supplies and to convert surplus milk, whether by the action of farmers' co-operative societies or by wholesalers such as the United Dairies or by the wholesale organisation attached to a federation of retailers; (e) the fact that large organisations, if uncontrolled, will result in a single seller and thereby place consumers in the hands of that seller to the possible detriment of quality, price, hours of delivery, etc.; (f) the need of educating the farmers in the production of cleaner milk, thereby making a more wholesome supply and preventing waste; (g) the damage to and loss of milk caused by delays in railways; insufficient treatment prior to transit, such as lack of cooling facilities; and general lack of organisation.
On the point about which Lord Strachie particularly asked, whether State control will continue after the war, it is very difficult to offer a prediction, but due consideration is certainly now being given to the question how in the enhanced value (if any) resulting from control the State should become beneficiary. For the moment the immediate problem before the Ministry of Food is the maintenance of the supply and the prevention of waste in transport and overlapping in distribution which prevail at present. The grant of an additional sum of 4d. per gallon to the producer during the summer months is a most important step towards securing production. There is no doubt that control of the wholesale trade will lead to

201
very large economies, in handling, and in transport. It is acknowledged that the present retail distribution is in many cases wasteful and inefficient; but this is a local matter the remedy for which lies in the accordance by the municipalities of a greater share of responsibility. It is hoped that an extension of municipal activity in this direction will be developed.
I may add that it is proposed to publish this Report by Major Astor's Committee. It is already in proof, and I understand that it will be in your Lordships' hands very shortly, after which it will be much easier for you to realise the complexity of the subject of which I have been able to give only the barest outline.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure that the House has listened with great interest to the reply which the noble Earl has given to my noble friend behind me. This subject, as he realises and as the House will realise, is one not merely of great importance but of considerable difficulty and complexity; because among all the subjects for control which the Food Controller's Department has felt itself obliged to undertake during the course of the war, there is none, I am certain, more delicate in its machinery than that of dairy farming with which my noble friend's Question is concerned. It is exceedingly easy, as I have no doubt the Department recognises, by taking a false step to discourage the production of milk; and it is one of the declared objects of the Committee which was appointed at the instance of the Board of Agriculture to stimulate that production.
But all the steps that have been taken in the past have, I think, not completely carried out that object. For instance, the Regulation of prices for milk—fixed, I have no doubt, after inquiry and with care—has not in all cases proved uniformly successful. There were one or two very abrupt changes made in the price of milk which in certain localities, by causing too rapid a fall from the winter price to the summer price, began locally to have a disastrous effect. The noble Earl mentioned the rise which has recently been granted in the summer prices of 4d. a gallon, very welcome because the prices as fixed did not appear in all cases to be adequate. Some of us assumed that the object of fixing a price for the six months from April to September on so low a scale as it was fixed, was a direct stimulus to the manufacture of cheese,
202
because it was evident by a very simple sum, taking the average of the six months prices for milk and the controlled price of cheese, that a farmer could make 3d. a gallon more by turning his milk into cheese, allowing a quite moderate value for the by-product.
Now take the case of butter. There is a dead loss in the manufacture of butter as compared with that of selling milk, even allowing nothing for the cost of making the butter; and it has appeared to me for some time that it is an inevitable result of our general situation, and of our fanning situation in particular, that the making of butter is likely to become as purely a luxury of the well-to-do as the growing of fruit under glass. I think it may be assumed that no farmer or small holder who desires to make the most of his product, as a sensibly man does, will ever make butter again even at such a price as half-a-crown per lb.—which is, I fancy, the price of butter now—if he can possibly obtain a market for the raw product of milk, or if he can turn his milk into cheese.
It is to be noted that the noble Earl spoke of these proposed measures as being of a temporary character, and also that if was not recommended by the Committee that there should be any purchasing of milk businesses—that is to say, a direct taking over, as I understand, of the larger scale, or, indeed, the smaller scale, of distribution to the public. But it is proposed that there should be a Milk Clearing House—a clearing house of information, as I assume; the creation of an organisation by which the supplies of particular districts will be directed to those places to which the product can be most cheaply and conveniently sent. And it is proposed to set up an organisation of divisional inspectors, who, I take it, will exercise something of a control which will be more than advisory over the private organisations and societies within their districts. We shall await with interest details of these powers, because on them I venture to think a great deal of the success of the new scheme must necessarily depend.
I also heard with satisfaction that it was not proposed to discourage local co-operative societies. There is to be no attempt, as I understand, to take over locally the collection of supplies or to start local Government factories. It is desired, I understand, to work through existing organisations and to encourage the forma-

203
tion of new societies. That is all to the good. What the noble Earl stated about the necessity for cleaner milk will naturally meet with the sympathies of your Lordships. As a matter of fact, I venture to think a great deal has already been done through the different milk-producing societies and various dairy associations in different districts to bring about a great improvement in this respect, and also in the practice of refrigerating and of generally fitting milk for the market. It is impossible to overrate the importance of the supply of a healthy sound article, particularly when that article is so largely used, as we know it is, in the bringing up of small children; but I hope that the Department will not allow the sanitary side of the proposals, important though they are, so to swamp the whole subject as to cause the more purely business considerations to be excluded. A trade is a very delicate plant, and there is, I venture to think, a real danger that if excessive alarm is created production may fall off instead of being stimulated as is desired. After all, it is an old saying that you can issue a mandamus to a person or a public authority to pull down a wall, but you cannot issue one to make them build a wall; in the same way you can make Regulations which will cause the supply of milk to be improved in quality, but you cannot by any Regulations that you can make, or any kind of encouragement that you can offer—except, as the noble Earl said, in the matter of price—absolutely compel the supply of this necessary product to be increased.
I was not altogether surprised, although we should have been glad had it been otherwise, that the noble Earl was not able to give a definite answer to the question of my noble friend Lord Strachie regarding the probable permanency of these Regulations. I am bound to say that if it was supposed that a somewhat rigid system of public control was going to be applied to the dairy industry all over the kingdom, I am afraid the result of that belief would be unfortunate. I think it would tend on the whole to make people go out of the industry rather than increase their liabilities in it. As my noble friend so truly said, and as has been said on many other occasions, for the purposes of the war people will stand almost anything, but they would I think, as Lord Selborne asserted, be unwilling to agree to a great revolution in a matter of this kind being now introduced in a form and
204
with machinery which would make it impossible to turn to a freer system when peace is declared. Of course, when we speak in this matter and other matters of "the end of the war" it is quite evident it cannot be supposed that any Regulations of this kind can stop automatically whenever peace happens to come. The process is clearly bound to be gradual, but I have no doubt that the Government will be pressed to express formally some definite intention as to what their hopes and desires are in this matter of the dairy supply of the country.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I do not want further to press this matter, and I am quite ready to withdraw my Motion, for though I must say I wish the noble Earl could give me fuller information I quite recognise that his position in this matter is similar to his position when answering the previous question—he is speaking from his brief and has not personal knowledge of this matter at all. Perhaps, however, he would clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding. I understood Lord Crewe to say that he thought the noble Earl said that the Government were not going to establish any milk depots, but the Astor Committee, whose recommendation was accepted by the Government, contemplate the establishment of milk depots on the ground which I quoted—namely, that private effort could not supply them. I think this is a matter that ought to be cleared up.
Then the noble Earl said that he could not give a reply as to State control after the war. As the noble Marquess said, this is a matter of great importance, because unless you make some definite pronouncement it will be very hard upon the small traders as well as the wholesale people, and it will have the effect of decreasing instead of increasing the supply of milk if you introduce unrest into the question. I had hoped that the noble Earl would say "Certainly there is not going to be State control after the war," all the more as I noticed that Mr. Clynes, who is, of course, in favour of State control for everything, said he was not certain how far he could speak for the Ministry of Food or for the Government. They were, he said, dealing with an urgent war necessity, and in his view should these great milk depots and the control of milk be well handled—and "State control of a most precious article of food seemed to be a very great advantage and benefit"—a public demand would

205
grow up to maintain something like State control after the war. This shows that what evidently was in his mind, and what he was concerned over, was setting up control at these large depots and so stimulating the public, perhaps by low prices, so that they would clamour for State control in the future. I think it ought to be made clear, now or later on, whether or not the Government as a whole approve of these views of Mr. Clynes.
The noble Earl says there is to be compulsory collection. I would ask him, Will that mean that the farmer will be bound to send his milk to the depots controlled by the State, or will he be allowed, as at present, to sell his milk to the retailer? Of course, he will not be allowed to sell wholesale, because I imagine that the Government mean to abolish the wholesale man in future. The point is, Will he be allowed to sell direct to the retailer, large or small, in the town, and get the larger profit than he would get if he sends the milk to the depot?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the last point alluded to is precisely one of those matters about which the Food Ministry is in communication, or will shortly be in communication, with the representatives of the producers. It is impossible for me to give any answer to his question except to say it is clearly a matter that cannot be ignored, and on which we may be quite certain the producers will have their full say. It is surely obviously to the interests both of the central authority responsible for the distribution of milk and of the producer that an amicable arrangement should be come to between the two parties.
I do not propose to criticise the technical observations of Lord Crewe. With regard to the question, again repeated by Lord Strachie, as to whether this projected control will end with the advent of peace, Lord Strachie put that inquiry before, and I said it really was impossible for me to give an answer. If you say it is going to end with peace, it means that the moment peace comes control must vanish and the public would starve for lack of milk. The change has to be gradually adjusted. Therefore it is perfectly impossible to say that control of milk, or of coal, or of wheat, or, indeed, of any other commodity, can automatically end with the war.
206
So far from thinking that such a statement is bound to discourage the producers, I really differ from Lord Strachie. The producer and the consumer also, as Lord Crewe says, will stand almost anything during the war, and I do not think that the price which has recently been increased by the authorities is now such as to justify any producer of milk in being discouraged. Uncertainty he has to face. He realises the importance of his product for public health, and for my part I believe he is doing his utmost to stimulate, certainly to maintain, it; but it would be very imprudent to give any pledge as to the exact date on which compulsory control will terminate. I really do not think we need be so apprehensive as the noble Lord suggests.
LORD STRACHIE: What about milk depots?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The statement I made was that a Milk Clearing House was to be established.
LORD STRACIHE: By the Government?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: By the Ministry of Food—a clearing house similar to the Margarine Clearing House that already exists. Some milk depots have already been established, I understand, and it is presumably probable that more may have to be established.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I understand it will be to the general convenience of your Lordships, there being no business on the Paper for to-morrow—the proposed debate on Ireland having been postponed to another day—that the House should adjourn until Thursday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of June 6.]

SMITH'S ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received; Bill presented, and read 1a.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.