Lords Sitting of 21 March 1918

NITRATE RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ECONOMY IN PRINTING.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I have pursued the inquiry that I promised yesterday into the proposed restriction in the circulation of Papers to your Lordships' House, and I now submit to you the following proposals. The only Papers which are circulated to all Peers as a matter of course are, first, the familiar Blue Paper that most of us receive every morning, which contains the Minutes of the House, Notices and Orders of the Day, and Notices of Committees; secondly, Bills and Amendments; and thirdly, certain other Command Papers—of which there are not many, but which usually appear in the form of a White Paper—which have a general circulation under the instruction of the Department concerned. Other Papers beyond these are supplied only to Peers who fill up the Pink Form with which your Lordships are familiar.
I find that considerable saving of paper can be effected by limiting the circulation of the three classes of Papers which I have described. It is suggested, following the course pursued in the House of Commons, that no Papers should he circulated as a matter of course to a Peer unless he gives notice of his desire to receive them. The present Pink Form practice will be preserved as respects Papers not belonging to the three classes of Papers having general circulation which I mentioned just now. As regards those Papers having general circulation, it is proposed that a form should be sent to each Peer containing a separate request to be filled up by him as regards each of the following categories. First, the full Minutes, as now circulated, containing the Minutes of Proceedings, the Orders of the Day, Notices for Days or "No day Named," and Notices for Committees; that is, the whole of the Blue Paper as now circulated. Secondly, Bills and Amendments. Thirdly, special Command Papers, which I just now described as White Papers, having general circula-
556
tion. I think that those proposals will meet with the general assent of your Lordships' House.
One point was raised yesterday by Lord Balfour of Burleigh—namely, whether it is desirable to proceed by Resolution in this matter. On the whole, I would ask the noble Lord not to persevere with that suggestion, for this reason. I find that it is in our power to take this action without a Resolution. If, on the other hand, a Resolution were deemed desirable, it could be taken only by Notice to-day after the Easter Recess—that is to say, we could not take it until April 9; and it would then follow that the request to noble Lords for their opinions could not be circulated until after that date. In other words, we should have a delay of three or four weeks, if not longer, before the new scheme could come into operation. On the other hand, if your Lordships sanction this procedure to-day without a Resolution, the inquiries could be addressed to noble Lords at once without further delay, and the new scheme could come into operation as soon as we recommence our proceedings after the adjournment. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships, on the whole, will be disposed to accept the suggestion I have made.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I accept, of course, the suggestion made by the noble Earl. But I suppose there will be some intimation made so that a Peer will know what his position is. My only object in desiring to proceed by Resolution was that a Peer should not be taken by surprise and find the Papers cut off without his knowing.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Lord is right about that. A circular will be sent forthwith to each Peer informing him of what has passed, and asking him to intimate his desire in the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl has decided to select these three categories. I would say, however, with regard to the smallest category, which is the one that most of your Lordships will probably desire to have, that a distinction might properly be drawn between the Minutes and the Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day. I doubt whether any Peer ever looks at the Minutes. I believe that Paper to be useless

557
as a matter of circulation, although an occasion may arise when it is necessary to see what the actual record is, and then one could see it by coming to the House. But what is important, to those who work the ordinary business of the House is to have the actual Notices of Motion of the individual day and the Notices of Motion which are yet to come.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I had thought of the point which has been made by the noble Marquess. But, on the whole, it seemed to me unnecessary and undesirable to make the distinction he suggests, for this reason. The economy in paper and in labour would be very small, and the Minutes of the Day are the only means which your Lordships enjoy of seeing what has been the Division List on the previous day. That is a matter of some value to your Lordships' House, and I think in those circumstances it is desirable to proceed as I suggested.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I suppose that a Peer may have a copy of a particular Bill sent, although he does not demand copies of all Bills?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, of course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Government whether they mean that all these Bills are to be carried through their remaining stages to-day under the suspension of the Standing Order? Your Lordships will remember that upon a previous occasion we had some discussion on this point. The Motion as to the suspension of the Standing Order was exactly the same as
558
now. Some noble Lords called the attention of the Government to the fact that it might be wise to suspend the Standing Order only with regard to Bills about which there was urgency. The noble Earl replied that it did not follow, because the Standing Order was suspended generally, that therefore the suspension would be used in respect of every one of the Bills which stood upon the Order Paper; and on that account the Motion was passed. When it comes to a Bill like the Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Bill, about which I can imagine there is no haste whatever, surely there is no reason why the ordinary procedure of the House should be varied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): I do not propose to carry this Bill through all its stages to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon.

DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): I would ask your Lordships to allow me to pass this Bill through its remaining stages now. It is a Bill brought in at the request of the House, and there has been no Amendment of any sort or kind. I want to get it speedily through your Lordships' House, because there are a great many gentlemen who would be invaluable as Deputy Lieutenants who are barred until the Bill passes.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Derby.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MARRIAGE HOURS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order), Bill reported without amendment.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think there is really no reason whatever for this hurry. This is an ordinary piece of legislation, there is nothing urgent about it, and it has nothing to do with the war. There has been no kind of explanation given to the House why the Bill should be passed. I have no doubt it is a good Bill, but there has been no kind of defence for it at all.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Did not the Lord Privy Seal give it? I think he did, and I read it this morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT of our yesterday's proceedings.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: At any rate, there is no ground for suspending the Standing Order in respect of a Bill of this kind. There is a real danger of its becoming the ordinary practice to suspend our rules, and there is no reason for it except in regard to urgent matters, when we are most willing to do so.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I respect the noble Marquess's anxiety to stand up on all occasions for the privileges of the House, but I think he is mistaken. He was mistaken about no explanation of the Bill having been given. I do not know whether it was adequate, but it was given to the House by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Lord Privy Seal is not here.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, he is not here at this moment, but when I gave notice of my intention to move the suspension of the Standing Order, although I did not mention this Bill, I said that my Motion did apply to all the Bills on the Paper, including this one, and I am informed that it is of great importance to get it passed without delay. It is also in the Royal Commission, and to take it out at this stage would be an unusual and inconvenient proceeding. Therefore, unless stronger reasons are advanced I hope your Lordships will allow the suspension of the Standing Order to apply to this Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I remember the Lord Privy Seal making his statement yesterday and saying that the Bill was a matter of some urgency, especially for the hours of war marriages in Ireland. I remember him distinctly saying that it was a matter of considerable urgency.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (SECRETARY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I do not see the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his place, but I am going to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I explained yesterday that it would be necessary to take all the stages of this Bill to day, and therefore if the noble Marquess were here he could not complain of not having been given notice.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Is this Bill included in the Royal Commission?
LORD HYLTON: It is.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

SUPPLY OF SUGAR.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to ask the Food Controller whether he is now in a position to make any definite statement as to the possible allowance of sugar to those who desire to use it for private making of jam or other preserves; and whether it would not be in the public interest to give some further information as to the disposition of the supply of sugar among the various trades concerned in its use.
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will recollect that some six or seven weeks ago I raised this question and received a more or less sympathetic answer from the noble Lord the Food Controller. At that time he said that while he was in sympathy with the object which I had in view he could not then give a definite pronouncement, but he hoped that at a later day he might be able to make a fuller statement and give further information relating to the stocks of sugar and the position generally than he felt able to do in January. I venture to hope that we may now have some more information than it was possible to give us at that time. I cannot help thinking that it would be to the general interest and public satisfaction if further information were given with regard to the supplies of sugar available, and the destinations for which it is at present allocated.

561
I have endeavoured to follow the public announcements made partly on the authority of Sir Charles Bathurst, Chairman of the Sugar Commission, and partly from other sources, and so far as I understand the matter those who are supplied with sugar under rations are the civil population, and I suppose in addition to the population of these islands there are supplies for the Army and Navy, and that in addition to private supplies there are probably supplies for the various trades concerned, such for instance as the confectionery trade, the biscuit-making trade, the mineral water trade, and those who make jam for sale. For the moment I leave out of account any question of sugar for brewing, because if I am correctly informed—and I have taken considerable trouble to get my information—the sugar used in brewing is of less good quality and does not seriously at any rate impinge upon the supply required for other purposes.
I do not know how much is required for public rationing. If one could know the exact population that is supplied by rations and calculate at ½ lb. per head per week one would be able to find out by a not very intricate sum of arithmetic the number of tons used in a year. If I understand it rightly it comes to some 18,000 or 20,000 tons a week, but that is only a matter of conjecture. I have also seen it stated on authority that the amount given for private jam-making last year did not amount to more than 10,000 tons—that is, not much more than half a week's supply. There, again, I am speaking only from hearsay, and from such information as I have been able to get. But if that is so, surely it would be possible this year, without seriously interfering with other supplies, to give the same sort of rations as was given last year for the private making of jam. I do think it would be fair—and it would really tend to settle public opinion, and help the Food Controller in his work—if we were told whether those trades which I have mentioned were really rationed in the same way as the private consumer, whether they were under the same control and only got a definite amount.
I have only one word more to say. I agree that there are three interests involved in the proposal with regard to sugar for jam-making. There is the general trade of jam-makers who make jam for sale;
562
there are the private persons who have been in the habit of purchasing fruit for jam-making for private consumption; and also the people—for whom I feel inclined especially to speak—who are private growers of fruit and only want sugar in order to make their own join. I believe the last class is that which it is most important to have supplied, but I do sympathise with those who have been in the habit of purchasing fruit for the purpose of making jam, and I am not jealous of their getting a proper amount provided it can be done. I see, however, much greater difficulty in establishing the fact that a person is going to make jam with the fruit that he buys than in establishing the fact that a person has a garden from which he is going to take the fruit to make the jam. I do not, attempt to draw comparisons between these classes or to go further than say that I am quite aware there are three interests involved, and to express the earnest hope, on behalf of these people, mostly of very humble class, who grow fruit in their own gardens, that they will be allowed a certain supply of sugar in order to make the fruit into jam. It will be a serious public loss if they are not. Having regard to the nature of the fruit, soft fruit in most cases, which ripens during several weeks in the year, I do not think it is in any way possible to have a satisfactory method of collecting the fruit at a central place to make it into jam. That is the strength of my plea, and it will be a real grievance if something cannot be done on time lines have suggested.
THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity of making a further statement and giving fuller information than I could give in January. I also thank him for letting me know beforehand the particular points which he intended to raise. As far as can be seen at present it will be possible to allocate this year about 10,000 tons (possibly more) of sugar to the private fruit grower for making jam. We hope that this can be done without reducing the supply to manufacturers. In view of the shortage of butter and the demands of the Navy and Army it is essential to maintain the output of the manufacturers who supply the bulk of the urban and industrial population with jam. The allocation of the sugar to private fruit growers will be made by the Local Food Control Committees in co-

563
operation with the War Agricultural Executive Committees. Permits will be granted by the Food Control Committees. The issue of sugar will be at a rate of not more than 10 lbs. per head for every member of the household who is receiving rations of other foodstuffs; but larger allocations may be made where the Committee consider this desirable. In any case where an extra allotment of sugar is made, it will be required that the jam made from the extra sugar is placed at the disposal of the Committee at current prices for sale on the market for consumption by the general public. Applicants for sugar will be required to give an undertaking that the sugar will not be used for any other purpose. They will be credited with 1¾ lbs. of jam for every lb. of sugar supplied and will be expected to reduce their purchases of jam to this extent.
The second part of the Question relates to the distribution of the sugar among the various trades. I am afraid I am not at liberty to give publicly the actual figures, but I will state the general lines of distribution. The domestic ration accounts for a little more than half—or 52 per cent.—of the total issue of sugar; 8½ per cent. of the total issue goes to the Navy and Army; ½ per cent. to the Navy and Army Canteen Board; 22 per cent. to the manufacture of jam; 3¾ per cent. to the manufacture of confectionery; 2½ per cent. to caterers and institutions; 1½ per cent. to bakers and cake makers; ½ per cent. to the manufacture the mineral waters; and 2½ per cent. to the manufacture of condensed milk. The balance goes to minor purposes and contingencies. The sugar-using manufacturers of all classes are strictly rationed on the basis of 25 per cent. of the sugar used by them in 1915 with the exception of the manufacturers of jam and condensed milk, to whom special issues have been made in order to secure as far as possible the necessary supplies of these two important articles of food. The supply to brewers of sugar suitable for domestic consumption has entirely ceased.
I should like to say here that under the system of rationing which came into operation on January 1 an immense improvement in distribution has been secured and complaints are rare. Further, the information before me indicates that up to the present the new system has brought about a substantial reduction in the quantity of sugar used fur domestic con-
564
sumption. At this time last year stocks of sugar in the country had fallen to a very low figure. I am happy to say that the present stock is much more satisfactory—I do not feel at liberty to give the actual quantity—but that does not mean that we can afford to be more generous in our distribution. We have to be careful and conservative in this matter. It is imperative in view of the shipping situation to maintain a certain stock in hand. There are no mysteries in my Department, and if the noble Lord or any other member of the House should desire to know the actual figures of the sugar supply, my friend Sir Charles Bathurst will be happy to give him, in confidence, the fullest possible information on the subject.

LOCH DOON AVIATION BASE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the abandonment of the scheme for an aviation base at Loch Doon; to ask on whose authority the scheme was undertaken, and on whose authority it was abandoned; and to move for a Return of the expenditure involved.
The noble Lord said: MY Lords, I am sorry to take up the time of the House in asking a second Question. Perhaps I should also apologise to the noble Lord for insisting on this Question in spite of the letter which I had from his private secretary yesterday in which he was good enough to tell me that there was an Inquiry going on at the instance of a Committee of another place. That I knew already, but, of course, I have no means either of attending that Inquiry or of knowing what questions are to he put; and I am by no means sure whether the whole of the ground will be covered.
I believe that a very serious waste of public money has occurred in connection with this matter. Your Lordships will see that the Question which I put is to ask on whose authority the scheme was undertaken; on whose authority it was abandoned; and to ask for a Return of the expenditure involved. I am perfectly well aware that the noble Lord, the new President of the Air Board, cannot possibly have been responsible for the inception of the silicate. I am absolutely ignorant whether the military authorities at the War

565
Office, or the Navy, or the Air Board (or whatever Air Committee was in existence a year or two ago) were responsible. All those of us who reside in Scotland know that the scheme was undertaken, that a large expenditure took place upon it, and that it has now been abandoned without, so far as I know, a single use ever having been made of it. Those facts are, I think, undoubted. It is a part of the country that I have known very well indeed for fifty years, and I have many friends residing in it.
Hitherto the Defence of the Realm Act has stopped any public criticism of this scheme, but, now that it is abandoned, the circumstances are changed, and I think we are free to ask questions. At any rate, I cannot see that there is any public interest that would be contravened by a full statement of the facts and discussion of them. I know, from my own personal knowledge and the testimony of friends, that if the advice of those with real local knowledge had been taken this scheme would never have been begun at all, and I do not think it is unfair to ask who was responsible for the selection of the site, what inquiries were made before the money was expended, and what engineering advice was taken. Beyond all question a large sum of money has been spent. Aerodromes have been built, roads and railways made on an extensive scale, workshops, camps, reservoirs, pipe tracks put in position, and large schemes of drainage undertaken.
The real point of the whole matter is this. Was the place really suitable? Was proper local information and advice appealed to before the expenditure was undertaken? I have read the discussion which took place in the other House, and if I understand that discussion rightly the Royal Engineers were the advisers. If I can trust to the testimony of a private friend, a man whom I have known for fifty years, the person who was really responsible was an English engineer of a town in the south of England, who had no practical knowledge of the particular conditions he would have to meet. My friend tells me that he interviewed this gentleman—I do not mention his name because I do not want to be unjust—told him the scheme was impossible and gave hint the reasons, but that all objections were repelled and no advantage of local knowledge was taken at all. Beyond all question a very large amount of local
566
damage has been done, and the forecast of those who knew the circumstances has, if my information is right, been absolutely fulfilled.
My friend goes on to say—
"In my opinion there never has been a madder scheme or a more shameful waste of public money. It is impossible for an outsider to form any real estimate of the public money which has been wasted, but I am told that about £3,000,000 has passed through a Bank at Dalmellington. I know all traces of the muddle are being destroyed as fast as possible, and one correspondent says he thinks there is enough cement buried at Loch Doon to build a wall round Jerusalem, and all this is being covered up so as to hide it as a monument of the stupidity of those concerned."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE AIR COUNCIL (LORD ROTHERMERE): My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord was going to raise the question as to who was really responsible for the inception of the Loch Doon scheme. The Air Ministry is not in possession of the information, but if I had known he was going to raise the point I would have endeavoured to obtain it and communicate it to the House. If the noble Lord wishes, I will endeavour to ascertain full particulars as to who advised its adoption and will communicate the information to him at the earliest possible moment.
The responsibility for the abandonment of Loch Doon rests with the Air Council, who decided on this course in the following circumstances. The Air Council, late in January, took over the construction of all works, including Loch Doon, from the War Office and at once proceeded to examine them. It was found that Loch Doon did not realise what had been expected. The project had already proved far more costly than was originally anticipated. The original estimate for the scheme was £150,000. This had already been largely exceeded, the sum of £420,000 having been spent, and sanction had recently been asked for the expenditure of a further considerable sum. Meanwhile, in spite of the amount of work done, there were grave doubts as to whether the place would ever be suitable for the work of a School of Advanced Aerial Gunnery. An unfavourable report on it was sent in by the Commandant in November of last year.
In these circumstances I invited two members of the Air Council, the Under-

567
Secretary of State and the Administrator of Works and Buildings, to proceed to Loch Doon and report upon it. This was done, and as a result of their report the Air Council decided that there was no alternative but to abandon the scheme, and the Army Council were so informed. The Air Council's decision was based on the view that after eighteen months' work there still remained no prospect of Loch Doon being available for a further indefinite period. The engineering difficulties, which had been recognised to be great from the start, proved far more formidable than was anticipated. An indispensable part of the scheme was the provision of an aerodrome on the Loch side, and in order to do this attempts had been made to drain a considerable area. The results of this experiment had failed to provide the necessary aerodrome, and the Administrator of Works and Buildings came to the definite conclusion that it could not be made.
I venture to invite your Lordships to consider this question from the point of view of a war measure. The necessity for providing our pilots with the highest possible form of gunnery instruction is vital, both for their own safety and for their efficiency. It would be in my view criminal to neglect anything which could possibly conduce to increased efficiency in this respect. The fact of Loch Doon proving a disappointment is regrettable. The site was chosen in somewhat of a hurry. The requirements of a school of this nature, which I have already described, are not easy to find. Every site has disadvantages. Loch Doon appeared, to those then responsible, to come nearer to fulfilling the requirement than anything else that could be found. It has turned out a disappointment, and the necessity to abandon it is obviously regrettable, but I venture to think that after we had reached the conclusion that it was unsuitable it was impossible to justify any further expenditure on the scheme, and that the only proper course was to face the inevitable criticism which would be aroused by its abandonment.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this most regrettable incident is one which is not unknown and not novel in the history of our military administration. The same kind of thing happened when the fortifications were made at St. Lucia, which subsequent investigation found were wholly
568
unsuitable for the purpose of naval strategy. The same thing happened when the old Garrison Artillery stations overseas, provided in large numbers, subsequently had to be scrapped and thrown away as it appeared that the proper kind of defence was naval defence. These things occurred in the old days and for the same reason as has happened now—namely, that there is no proper distribution of the function of thinking about these things beforehand from the function of doing them. Naval works were taken in hand without any proper General Staff consideration, and so was provision for the Overseas Garrison Artillery. These things were not thought out at the time that they were done.
At the time when this was done the Air Service was merely a sort of appendage of the War Office. There was no separation of the General Staff work of the Air Service from the administrative work such as there is at the present time. It would be a monstrous iniquity if to-day a great new Artillery School were set up without the conditions having previously been submitted to the General Staff for consideration as to whether they were likely to be effective. The General Staff, if it knew its business, would at once advise, and I think always has advised in such cases, that what has taken place should not go on, but with the Air Service unfortunately that was not so in the early stages. Here we have an illustration of the muddles that result when there is not a proper amount of military forethought taken. Anybody, of course, ought to have been able to discover, with a proper staff for the purpose, that Loch Doon was a wholly unsuitable place, having regard to climatic conditions and other things, for the Air Service, assuming always that in those days the conditions under which an aviation station could be established were known and ascertainable.
It is different now. The noble Lord has got in the Air Service of which he is the head a General Staff organisation separated from the administrative organisation, and I trust that no such cases will ever happen in the future. They are inevitable when you do not have the consideration that I have indicated. They have happened, as I have said, on many occasions before. I could multiply instances from my own memory. They have happened on this occasion for the very same reason. The noble Lord is quite right to

569
cut the losses. Had he gone on with this nothing but great mischief, further losses of money, and probably loss of life and of efficiency would have resulted, and it is much better for the country to put up with the loss of a large sum of money rather than incur further waste. I think that this incident, which in its magnitude is much more than an incident, will be an illustration to the country of the absolute necessity of the policy, not only in things military but in all things, of thinking out beforehand, with special skill and special knowledge brought together and assembled for the purpose, the probable consequences of the courses on which you intend to embark.
LORD LAMINGTON: Can the noble Lord say whether another site has been found?
LORD ROTHERMERE: Not a similar site. We are still looking for one.
Loan BERESFORD: May I ask whether the individuals who were responsible for this extraordinary muddle are still in the service of the State?
LORD ROTHERMERE: I cannot tell the noble Lord which individual was responsible for this matter, and I have myself thought that probably an Inquiry would hardly be proper, as I believe that quite a large limber of officers were consulted in regard to it upon its inception.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can the noble Lord say limier what Ministry and at what date it was actually authorised?
LORD ROTHERMERE: I believe it was in June, 1916, but I am not quite sure under what Ministry the work was undertaken. I believe it was the War Office.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not think that I have ever heard such an answer given, or such a waste of public money confessed to. I am not at all inclined to seek for revenge on the persons who did this, but at the same time I think we ought certainly to know their names, and all the facts of this case ought to be published in the country. Not a shadow of an excuse has been given for a waste of what we are told amounts to £3,000,000.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No £420,000.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I thought that some one said £3,000,000, but I accept £420,000. Still, my Lords, the persons who made this muddle ought to be amenable to public opinion, and we ought to know by whom the name of the country has been thrown away. Of course, the noble Lord is not in the slightest degree responsible himself, but I hope that he will furnish us with a Return of the persons who were responsible, and I will move, if necessary, that a Return of that kind he furnished.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I think it undesirable that your Lordships should, without further information, pass any Motion on the subject at all. My noble friend has admitted with perfect candour that a great mistake was made, and the policy of cutting the losses of that mistake is, I believe, as the noble Viscount (Lord Haldane) said, accepted by the House. About that there is no dispute. But other noble Lords are anxious to find out how this sort of thing occurred, and who was responsible for it. That is in itself a reasonable request. I have a faint recollection of hearing the matter mentioned when I was connected with the Air Board. I assumed charge of the Air Board about the middle of 1916, and I believe that this project had already been decided upon. I think my noble friend—I am speaking only from recollection—was right when he said that it was a War Office scheme. I have a recollection also of hearing that the matter was only decided upon after a most careful examination by experts, or by so-called experts. I do not imagine that any Government even in the rather inchoate days as regards air policy and air administration, of which I am particularly speaking, would have embarked upon any scheme of this sort without some preliminary investigation of a detailed character. I think that the House is entitled to further information upon the matter, and I would ask my noble friend to make, inquiry upon the point, and perhaps when we meet again, if some noble Lord will put a Question on the Paper, we may be able to carry our investigation of the matter further.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: After what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said, I ask permission to withdraw the Motion, and will consult with the noble Earl himself and others as to what is the best form in which to put it down again hereafter.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SHIPPING LOSSES.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that there is no connection between the continued loss of British ships by submarine attack and the large number of aliens and of naturalised British subjects residing in or near seaport towns who have access to docks and wharves, and, if not, whether they will take steps to remove, or at all events to diminish, this national danger.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in asking this Question I wish to make it quite clear that I am bringing no accusations whatever against His Majesty's Government, nor do I assert that there is any connection between the tonnage losses of British ships by submarine attack and the large number of alien and of naturalised British subjects residing in or near seaport towns who have access to docks and wharves. All I do, my Lords, is to ask whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied that there is no connection between these things. If they are satisfied I am sure the large majority of British people will accept that. We know quite well that His Majesty's Government are just as anxious as we are that the aliens who are within our borders should not be permitted to injure the country. But what we want to be sure about is whether the Government are taking every step which they possibly can, and whether they realise that there is great anxiety on the part of the British public in regard to this matter.
The British public not unnaturally say to themselves. "We are told by the Government of the day that 2,938 ships were sunk in 1917. We are told also by the Home Secretary that 1,809 alien enemies are living in prohibited areas, and that 6,780 aliens are living within the Kingdom. Can it be possible that any of these large numbers of aliens have not had a finger
572
in this pie?" Only quite recently we know that two large hospital ships were torpedoed off Lundy Island almost at the same spot, and that several ships have been lost somewhere about that particular neighbourhood. The public say, "Unless there was some communication, how would the German commander of the submarine dare to show his nose in the neighbourhood of Lundy Island after so many ships had been lost in that neighbourhood?"
I individually, and I am sure your Lordships' house, appreciate the enormous difficulties with which His Majesty's Government have to contend in this matter. We quite realise that there must be very largo numbers of aliens who are doing their best to promote British interests, and we quite recognise the difficulty that there is in distinguishing between those who are assisting us and the others who pretend to assist us and really are assisting the enemy. We also realise that there is just as much danger from a certain number of British subjects, and from neutrals, as there is from aliens who are our enemies. All we want to do is to be able, from the mouth of the Government, to assure the people that everything is being done by the Government which is possible, so that no loophole whatever shall be left to the enemy through which to injure this country. This should be, and no doubt is, also the desire and the aim of His Majesty's Government.
It cannot be said that we have not been given proof after proof of the presence of an extraordinarily intricate system of spying on the part of Germany throughout the whole Empire, and throughout the whole world. Therefore we have some reason to be supicious lest something of the sort may be going on among us. And as it is exceedingly difficult really to get at facts which are first hand, perhaps I may be permitted to give a few instances myself of what has happened to me. It is a matter of general knowledge that aliens attend our public meetings and wait upon us at hotels and at restaurants, travel with us by railway and trams and omnibuses, and I myself have come across, perfectly accidentally, a German dressed as a clergyman. It was at one of our large seaport towns, and I was asking the way in the dusk of the evening, and I came across a man dressed perfectly accurately in an English clergyman's dress, and asked him the way.

573
He answered me in perfectly broken English, with a German accent, that he was a stranger and did not know. I asked myself, Is there in the "Clergy List" a clergyman who happens to be a German? If so, they are very few. Before the war we know that there was a great deal of all that going on, and I have had a German in my house and that was perfectly legitimate. I found him at the Vice-Regal Lodge and brought him down to my house, and before he left I found out exactly what he was and all about him—he did not know it.
Since I put this Question on the Notice Paper I have had a good deal of correspondence. Of course I cannot vouch for any of these correspondents, but very briefly I will say what they tell me. One writes and says he was travelling by the early mail train from Cardiff, and in the train was a person wearing a Naval officer's uniform who spoke English, but the accent, was unmistakably German. Then there is a ship's broker from Swansea. He writes that the communications with Ireland, letters and telegrams should be more strictly censored and the movement of neutral steamers from the Channel to the port of arrival should be strictly investigated. A fitter at the docks writes that the men engaged in the manning of his dock—entrance-bridges and locks—include Norwegians, Dutchmen, Spaniards, and Italians.
From Cardiff I hear that most accurate information of ships' movements up and down the Bristol Channel is obtained by telephone from the coastguard at Barry Island by ships' store runners of all nationalities. A man writes from personal experience—
"I have on many occasions rung up '66 Barry,' and obtained news of ships passing up and down the Channel, without ever being asked whom represented."
That reminds me that on one occasion I went into a munitions factory—this was some time ago, at the beginning of the war—and I went through the whole of that factory and was never asked what my business was, or who I was. I saw everything, and came out and could have told everything there was in that factory. That was rather funny. It happened to me individually.
Another instance. A man writes to say—
"I have sent information to the authorities time after time with regard to signalling going on
574
in the Bristol Channel, also on the south coast of Devon and in Cornwall, but no attention seems to be paid. The aliens are allowed to live all round the coast and have free access to ports."
Another correspondent draws my attention to the fact that there is a standing advertisement in some of the shipping papers which is as follows:—
"Admiralty Charts.—The latest editions of charts, plans, and sailing directions, published by the Admiralty, can be had from J. G. Potter, Admiralty Agent for Charts, 145, Minories, London."
Anybody can buy these. Is that quite safe? Then there is a lady who writes to me and says that on the extreme point of a certain bay—I can tell the noble Lord who replies which bay it is—a German woman, the wife of a clergyman, is frequently signalling to German submarines. Whether she really is I cannot say. She also says in the same locality is a convent of German nuns.
There is another letter I have from a gentleman who was staving at a watering-place, the name of winch I will not mention, for a few days last autumn, and observed a typical old German sitting most evenings at the end of the quay, with the boys who were fishing. He was very friendly with them, asking questions in a perfectly innocent way. "Vot is dat leedle fish?" All this may be untrue or exaggerated, or partly true—I cannot say. All I want to find out is whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied that things are going on as they ought to be. We know, of course, that His Majesty's Government are anxious to do everything they can to prevent any system of spying from being carried on; but I think that many of the answers that have been given in both Houses of Parliament have been sometimes rather more a discouragement to one than otherwise. I can remember being told more than once in this House by the noble Lord who has perhaps done more for British prisoners than any other, that some of us appeared to want to see Germans "guzzling behind barbed wire." That gives the impression that the Government are not very anxious to receive information with regard to what is going on.
I may be wrong, but I believe it to be true that telephone messages can be sent without censorship. Telephone messages might easily be sent to Ireland, and from thence communicated to the enemy. Are all telephone messages censored, or would

575
it be possible for a telephone message of a seditious character to he sent to Ireland without anybody being the wiser? Another thing. Do His Majesty's Government recognise that some British and some neutrals are as dangerous as Germans—perhaps more so? On Monday last Sir George Cave said that one-half of the 1,809 aliens who are allowed to live in prohibited areas are women; and that since July, 1916, upwards of 700 have been sent overseas. I trust that His Majesty's Government will continue this policy, not only in the case of women but in the case of men. Some people have suggested that these persons might be used as ballast in ships returning to America. Anyhow, the Government might see whether they cannot place more of these aliens outside these islands, where their presence would, perhaps, be comparatively harmless.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I desire to support my noble friend. The merchant service as a whole believe that there is close connection between these sinkings and spies. I have been down to Cardiff and to Swansea, and have spoken to many captains and others connected with shipping. These people are perfectly convinced that there are too many aliens in the Swansea and Cardiff docks. But it is not only the Germans who are dangerous; it is the naturalised aliens, and the people connected with neutral ships that come in. Our mercantile marine have been more than good. Their heroism is unbounded; and it is our duty to see that nobody shall affect the position of these men when they go to sea, by spying or otherwise giving away information that may lead to their destruction.
We cannot do enough for the mercantile marine. They have to face sufficient dangers without the dangers incurred from the shore by means of spies. Sir Edward Nicoll, whom I know very well and who was two and a half years on the examination service at Cardiff and Swansea and the Welsh Coast, told me that there were too many aliens in the docks. These aliens go there under all sorts of pretences, selling combs, fruit, and other pedlar's wares, and a large number of them should be cleared out. I trust that the noble Earl who is going to reply will give us some information as to how many of these aliens have been cleared out from these docks and interned. I should like to hear him say that the whole of them will he cleared
576
out because, although you might do injustice to two or three people, the lives of our merchant seamen should be above every other consideration.
Our mercantile marine have fed us, and also the Army and the Navy. Without their heroic gallantry we could not have gone on with the war as long as we have, and victory would be absolutely impossible without them. Therefore, on their behalf, I enter a protest against so maul aliens being allowed at the docks. I maintain that there is spying going on; otherwise how is it possible for hospital ships and other vessels, outward bound, to be put down in the same place? How is it that a submarine captain the other day abused one of our captains for being so many hours late? Again, a submarine captain had a receipted bill from an English hotel in his pocket when he was captured. If the noble Earl has not heard of the case, I will let hint know about it.
Anyway there is not enough supervision; and we are not careful enough about the lives of the men we are sending to sea to fetch our foal. The suspicion amongst the men of the mercantile marine is very strong, and naval officers also have the suspicion, that there are a great deal too many aliens in the country. It is far worse to have an enemy in your rear than to have one in front of you that you can see and fight. I hope that the noble Earl will give us some satisfactory answer as to what is going to be done to clear those aliens out of the docks.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, the implication in the Question of the noble Earl, although he disclaimed holding that view himself, is that there is some connection between the continued loss of British ships by submarine attack and the presence of a large number of aliens and naturalised British subjects in our ports; and the noble Earl asked whether the Government share that view. My answer is, very definitely and emphatically, in the negative. We do not share that view. I have already stated that once in this House, and it has been stated on more than one occasion in the House of Commons. But I do not suppose that, if this assurance were repeated ever so many times, it would prevent a certain number of people from believing that this connection exists. The

577
noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken told us that he himself believes that there is this connection, and that he knows of many others who hold the same view.
The difficulty is this. I can give your Lordships an assurance that we do not believe that this connection exists; but I cannot remove doubts and suspicions which may exist in the minds of any of your Lordships, or of others, without going into details and giving a great deal of information which it would be obviously impossible for me to give. I am obliged, therefore, to confine myself to general statements, and to ask your Lordships to believe that, if I make a general statement, it is based upon facts within the knowledge of the authorities. I would like, if I can, to give the noble Earl some reassurance upon three points in particular. In the first place I would point out that the explanation which he has given, or, rather, which he has implied in his Question, for the continual sinking of ships, is really not required. I have been somewhat criticised for stating, in answer to the noble and gallant Lord a few days ago, that where submarines were operating in particular waters losses of ships were inevitable. I am aware that this is an obvious platitude. But my real reason for stating anything so obvious was to emphasise the fact that it is not necessary to go out of your way to discover causes either for the continued losses of ships or for the loss of any particular ship. It would be, I think, just as unreasonable to allege as a cause for the destruction of any particular house or property in any particular locality in an air raid the presence of aliens in the town. When the sea is as full of ships as it is the opportunities for destruction afforded to submarines are so great that the wonder really is not that so many ships are destroyed but that so many of them escape. I only repeat this very obvious thing in order to ask you to believe that it is not necessary to invent, or to imagine, the action of enemy agents to account for the destruction of ships in particular waters. Then again the aliens and naturalised British subjects who live in our ports or near our ports are persons about whom the authorities know a great deal more than does the general public. The noble Earl spoke of having met by accident a German dressed as a clergyman. He may meet, or his friends may meet, aliens or naturalised British subjects in a great many places, but they are not there by accident and their presence
578
in all these districts is known to the authorities.
THE EARL OF MEATH: May I interrupt? I made inquiries whether this man was known, and he was not known.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Of course, I need not say that the authorities always welcome any information from any individuals as to their own personal experiences. Mere repetition of stories they have heard is of little value, because they cannot be investigated, but definite information is always welcomed and is always examined and investigated; and the point which I wish to make is this, that although there are, it is quite true, a large number of aliens living in our ports, the authorities have full knowledge concerning them, and they must therefore be the best judges of whether or not it is safe for those persons to reside in those places.
The noble Earl read a letter from one of his correspondents stating that information had been continually sent to the authorities and that nothing had been done. Probably by nothing being done is meant that the persons continue to be there although information had been sent to the authorities that they were aliens and were residing in a particular place. It is not to be assumed that because the action suggested by a particular correspondent is not taken the case is ignored by the authorities and nothing is done. I repeat that those who have the fullest information as to the antecedents, the business, and the movements of registered aliens or of naturalised British subjects must be the best and only judges whether or not it is safe for them to reside in particular localities.
LORD BERESFORD: They never acted at all until public opinion made them.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The last point on which I wish to give the House an assurance is this, that where danger does exist—and I do not deny for a moment that there is danger, and there are, of course, agents in this country perpetually seeking to obtain information for our enemies—the powers already enjoyed by the authorities are sufficient to deal with it, and, moreover, no inter-Departmental friction or difficulty is ever allowed to prevent those powers being exercised. As the House knows, there are three Depart-

579
ments concerned in this question. The Admiralty, the War Office, and the Home Office are all concerned with the registration of aliens in different parts of the country. They act in the closest possible co-operation, and are constantly in consultation with each other, and I can assure the noble Earl that the Admiralty have no difficulty whatever, so far as the other Departments are concerned, in getting their wishes carried out. I am afraid I cannot give the noble and gallant Lord the figures for which he asks. I do not know either the total number of aliens in this country at this moment or the number who have been expatriated. If he wants the figures no doubt they can be obtained.
To those who think that we are ignorant and blind and inactive it is quite impossible to give any answer that would prove reassuring. But to those of your Lordships who are genuinely anxious to know to what extent the danger referred to by the noble Earl exists, and how far we are alive to it, I would like to repeat that the danger does of course exist, that it is fully recognised, and that constant precautions are taken to guard against it. I might perhaps add this, that the Question which the noble Earl has put upon the Paper, and other Questions which have been recently asked in the House of Commons, have drawn special attention to this subject and have led to a recent consultation between the Admiralty, the Home Office, and the War Office with a view to seeing whether either of those Departments have any information which perhaps was not at the disposal of the others. The result of that Conference was that there was a unanimous agreement that there was no evidence at all forthcoming pointing to any direct connection between the presence of aliens in or near our seaport towns and the continued losses of our ships by submarine attack.
I would conclude by repeating that any information that noble Lords can at any time supply to us is valuable. As your Lordships know, there are persons who see spies in every house and in every corner. The noble Earl has given us a little insight into his correspondence. He can well imagine, from what he has received, the kind of correspondence that reaches the authorities in charge of this matter. We are perpetually hearing stories of signalling to submarines, and I do not think that, of the hundreds and thousands of
580
stories of this kind that have been investigated, I can recall to mind a single case which has been definitely proved. But they are always investigated, unless they happen to be stories which have been previously examined, and of which therefore a new investigation is not required. But this is a danger against which we are perpetually on our guard, and we greatly welcome any assistance which anybody can give us to make the country still more sure; and if I have stated that we are satisfied that there is no connection between the sinking of ships and the presence of aliens, I have done so not with the object of making your Lordships believe that we have no suspicion in that direction, but merely to assure you that our attention is perpetually directed towards possible danger from this source. Although we are convinced that at the present time it is not necessary to find this excuse for the loss of ships, we are always ready to investigate any information which can be given to us of a definite kind based on personal experience.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, with the permission of the House may I thank the noble Earl for having answered me so thoroughly and sympathetically? Perhaps I may be permitted also to point out that it is not always the case that the authorities know how many aliens there are in their district or who they are. Only the other day there appeared in the paper a paragraph to this effect. Headed "Thousands of Aliens," it stated that when an alien was summoned at Willesden for not notifying his change of address, Mr. Hanbury, the magistrate, asked: "Are not these men looked up occasionally?" The inspector replied: "No, sir; there are several thousands in the district, so that we could not do it." The magistrate said: "All the more reason," and imposed a fine of 20 s.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl gave a very reassuring statement about the stories that most of us hear, but may I draw attention to one story which was prevalent in Scotland, and if that story is untrue it would be desirable to law its ghost. It was alluded to by the noble and gallant Lord on my left. It has reference to a U-boat captain asking how it was that a certain ship he had torpedoed—the crew had escaped in a boat—was so many days late. The implication was

581
that the ship had been delayed owing to the transfer of cargo from one ship to two ships for greater safety in going to Archangel, and the ship had been torpedoed off the north of Scotland. That was the story, and many points in it seem to be quite capable of proof. Therefore it is very desirable if the story is false that we should lay its ghost, just as hundreds and thousands of others have been found to be false, as the noble Earl says. The noble Earl has no doubt heard this story.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I had not heard that particular story, although I recognise its family likeness to a great many others. If the noble Lord really has heard that story from anybody who can give the name and address of the person to whom it was said, I should be extremely grateful if he would supply me with the facts. These stories are constantly repeated, and on investigation we find it is always three of four times removed from the original narrator, and one can never get to the individual who is said to have had the experience. It is a very familiar type of story. I do not believe it for a moment, but I do not say that it could not have been true. I certainly assure the noble Lord that if he will supply me with information that can be investigated it will be investigated.

BREAKING UP GRASS LANDS.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had given notice of his intention to ask His Majesty's Government the following Questions with regard to grass lands already broken up or under orders for ploughing by the instructions of the Government—

1. Whether the requisite labour for its care and proper cultivation has been arranged for and will be forthcoming when needed; and

2. Where any land under orders for ploughing is not already broken up, whether in view of the late period of the season and the shortage of fodder and feeding stuffs the Government will consider the possibility of suspending the order for ploughings, by which the hay crop would be lost, until after that crop has been taken, and especially in districts where dairy farming prevails; and to move for Papers.

582
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to preface what I have to say by some explanation of why parts of the Questions which I had originally placed upon the Paper are no longer included. By the courtesy of the Director-General of Food Production, I had the opportunity of interviewing him the other day, and. I learned from him, as regards my inquiries for certain Returns about the number of acres ploughed up in 1917 and 1918, and as to the provision of labour, that no Returns were possible. They had not received them with regard to the ploughings up to the present time, and therefore it was useless for me to ask for them. I had two Questions relating to certain Returns as to the way in which the ploughing had been done in 1917 and 1918—whether by tractors or by steam ploughing or by horses—which personally I thought was not unimportant. Still more important, of course, is the question of adequate labour. For the season I have stated I have been obliged to abandon these inquiries, for the present at all events.
The questions which I have raised are only the natural corollary to a Motion which I made in June of last year, and which was accepted by the Government, and by Lord Milner in particular on behalf of the Cabinet. If you refer to the terms of that Motion you will find that my Questions are strictly limited to inquiries I made at that time, when it was practically promised that effect should be given to certain suggestions. I have, therefore, thought it right to take the course which I have taken this afternoon. Moreover, I have been greatly pressed from all parts of the country not to allow the adjournment for the Easter holidays to take place without drawing the attention of the Government to these matters. Just before I left my house this afternoon I received a long communication with which I will acquaint the House. From many other letters that I have had I am afraid this discloses what is rapidly becoming a typical case and illustrates what is now going on in various parts of the country with regard to the ploughing up of land. It is a case where an owner of land has been ordered to do a certain amount of work of that kind himself, to break up the land, and he has no means of doing it. He has neither implements, nor labour, nor horses, nor the money to find them if he could get them. There has been a long correspondence from which I will read

583
only one or two of the concluding letters to show exactly what has occurred, and I think you will agree with me that it is an extremely hard case. This is a letter signed C. Williams, honorary secretary to the Agricultural Committee, Newcastle-on-Tyne, who says—
"With reference to the Order requiring you to cultivate the land specified therein, for the crop of 1918, the Executive Committee, in pursuance of the Cultivation of Lands Order, 1918, made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, under Regulation 2M of the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Regulations, 1914, hereby require you to commence ploughing the said land within ten days of the date of this notice, and thereupon to proceed without delay to complete the work and properly prepare the land for seed. I am to point out that neglect of, or failure to comply (for any reason other than that of unfavourable weather) with, this notice will render you liable to prosecution for an offence under the Regulations."
What is the reply to that letter? It is written by a solicitor of high standing in that district, who, I understand, is the agent for the gentleman concerned. He had written to me before on this subject, but I only got this further communication this morning. I know nothing beyond what is contained in these letters, but still I think they are deserving of inquiry on the part of the Government unless there is any reason to suppose, and I know of none, that it is misinformation. He says—
"I enclose herewith correspondence which I have had with the Local Committee at Newcastle. I have placed the situation very clearly before them—namely, that while the owner of the estate is ready and willing loyally to obey any legal orders respecting the ploughing up of the land, yet he has no available cash and therefore he has to apply to the Local Committee at Newcastle for an advance of £10 per acre, namely, £720, to enable him to do what he is ordered to do. You will see by the last letter received from Newcastle that the authorities state that they have no power to make this advance, and apparently the only advance they will make is to enable the owner to purchase grain, or potatoes, according to the crop intended to be grown. You will see that the authorities at Newcastle do not attempt to deal with my point, but simply state that they have no power in the matter. The situation thus is a most illogical one, because if the owner of the estate is not possessed of the means to enable him to farm the land how can he be expected to pay a fine, which I presume is what the authorities will ask for as we have been served with a ten days' notice to plough up? Will you kindly, therefore, bring this matter before Lord Rhondda and the authorities as soon as possible, as I am determined not to let the matter rest."
LORD RHONDDA: It has nothing to do with me.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am delighted to hear the noble Lord say that, because
584
I have always disputed that he has any right whatever to deal with any matters affecting the production of food. The letter goes on—
"And if a satisfactory solution is not arrived at, I have friends who will bring the matter before the House of Lords and the House of Commons."
I have only quoted this letter. Possibly you may say I am to blame for not having taken the pains to ascertain for myself whether there is any reason to doubt the accuracy of the information, but I have obviously not had time to do so. I only received it just before I left my house. It is typical of a great number of communications which I have received from all parts of the country, and I cannot believe that I should get these unless there was something in them, or in some of them, to warrant my taking the course I have taken this afternoon.
In saying this I do not wish that my attitude with regard to the question of the ploughing up of grass lands and the necessity for an enormous increase in the cultivation of this country should be misunderstood in the slightest degree. The first occasion on which I believe I addressed your Lordships was on a Motion which I had placed on the Paper before Christmas in 1916, and the moment I could obtain a day I raised the whole question of the condition of our food supply, and what, in my humble judgment, it was absolutely necessary we in this country should do. I have never wavered in the slightest degree in the opinions I expressed at that time. What I said then was that, in the light of our recent information, and in the presence of modern methods of warfare, especially at sea, there was only one possible safeguard for the continued existence of this country as a great nation among the other countries in the world, and that was that we made ourselves self-supporting as regards our essential supplies of food. I also expressed the conviction, which I still maintain, that if that policy is carried out by the right methods it is a policy which it is perfectly possible for us to pursue. Why do I say that? I say it because in the years 1841 to 1845, in that quinquennial period before the repeal of the Corn Laws, we fed 24,000,000 of our own people with wheat, or about 90 per cent. of the whole population of the country. And what we have done before, if we choose, we can do again, especially when you consider that you can call in the aid of oats

585
and barley grown in this country in addition to wheat, and that an immense use in the making of bread can be made, and successfully made, of potatoes as well. It gives me every right to believe that what I say is perfectly true—namely, that as regards the most essential of our requirements we can be made self-supporting in this country if we choose to take the proper methods of becoming so.
But for that purpose, or for the production of other kinds of food in this country, there are two things which are vitally essential. As regards corn, one is adequate labour; as regards meat, it is the whole-hearted and loyal support of all the farmers and producers of meat in this country. Have we got the first? Have we got adequate labour? That is a question which I cannot answer. I know not what are the views of the officials in the different Government Departments who ought to know, and who ought to be able to tell us. We have heard nothing since the debate, I think it was in June, when Lord Milner told us all that he had done in that matter, and I think he had done a great deal. Though I have talked with him about it once or twice since then, I have never thought it necessary to press him upon the subject until the present time, when I receive all these complaints about the harsh methods which are being adopted with regard to numbers of people who do not immediately comply with the requirements to plough up very valuable land, especially at this late period of the season, when there does appear to me to be not sufficient and substantial justification for it.
What about the position of the farmers? They were perfectly satisfied after the speech of the Prime Minister on February 23 of last year. There was laid downa programme which consisted on the one side of a guarantee of certain prices for corn, and on the other side of a guarantee of fixed prices for wages. The wages were to be 25 s. a week, and they were supposed to balance the price of corn. What is the latest intelligence that I hear upon that point? I believe this to be absolutely true, and the Government must know it. The Wages Boards were afterwards set up, although a distinct statement was made by the Prime Minister that they should not be set up until after the war. The Wages Board which is in operation in Norfolk, one of the great corn-growing districts, has now
586
decided—and they have the power to do it under the Corn Bill—that wages are to be 30 s. instead of 25 s. a week. What does that mean? Wages are always, upon an arable farm, by far the largest outgoing that a farmer has to meet, and farmers who know their own business, men upon whom I can rely—I had a conversation with one of them yesterday, a Lincolnshire man whom I have known for at least forty years, and who holds one of the biggest farms in that corn-growing country—tell me that it will be absolutely fatal to production unless a very large addition indeed is made to the guaranteed prices of corn in order to balance the increased cost in wages.
What is the case in regard to meat? Have the farmers confidence at the present moment which will induce them to do everything they can to increase the production of meat? I do not want to raise old controversies between myself and the Controller of Food which I hope, for the present at all events, are disposed of. But I am bound to say—it would be wrong of me to conceal it—that by the scale of prices which he adopted a scarcity of meat was brought about. He says that the scale had been adopted before he came to the Ministry. Still he was responsible for it, and he must remember also that in this House gentlemen sitting on both sides so far as I remember, warned him again and again that if he adhered to that proposal there would be a famine in meat before the New Year. The great shortage which had been predicted actually came about before last Christmas.
The noble Lord the Minister of Food was kind enough to send me the other day a Memorandum in which I was told that all differences between the farmers and himself up to the present had been settled. I have unfortunately been told, again by men of high standing upon whom I can thoroughly rely, that this is a great mistake, and that they are not satisfied yet. I am afraid that this is not absolutely germane to the Question which I have put on the Paper, and unless the noble Lord particularly desires it I do not expect—I do not deserve—to have any reply from the noble Lord. But as we are about to part for the Recess I thought that I should be failing in my duty if I turned a deaf ear to the innumerable requests, which have been made to me with regard to the ploughing up of some grass lands. I hope

587
that those who are responsible in His Majesty's Government for this branch of the question will at least be careful to make inquiries, and that if they receive, as I presume they must receive, some complaints, they will very carefully examine them before compelling people, at a great sacrifice to themselves, to plough up the grass when they believe that to be unwise, especially at a period of the year like this when practically speaking it is almost too late—too late with much hope of success—to do a great deal in the way of spring sowing of corn. That being so I would ask whoever may be responsible that serious consideration should be given to the last of my Questions, namely, whether it would not be possible for the Government, where the ploughing up of land would involve a loss of the hay crop, taking into consideration the lateness of the season and the admitted shortage of fodder and food-stuffs, to make some modification of their Order and Instructions. I have nothing more to add, and I am grateful to your Lordships for your kind attention. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, if I may be allowed I should like to make a short personal statement of the reasons for my resignation of the office of Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture. I feel that your Lordships will think that this occasion is by no means an inopportune one to give you the reasons for it. The noble Viscount, in the Questions which he has asked, has insisted very strongly upon the unwisdom of ploughing up grass land in the month of March, and I have no doubt that the noble Viscount himself, and I have no doubt also the members of your Lordships' House, would expect the representative of the Board of Agriculture to defend that policy. I find myself in the position of being unable to give a proper Parliamentary defence for the ploughing up of grass land in March. I am in a similar position to the gentleman whom the noble Viscount quoted—that is to say, I have ploughing orders placed upon the land in my occupation which I shall find it impossible to carry out. I feel that it would be dishonest on my part, and distinctly dishonourable, to defend the policy of the Board of Agriculture in this House when simultaneously, in my private capacity, I was attempting to prevent, or indeed almost to resist, the application of that policy when enforced upon me by the
588
executive committee of my own county. I cannot help feeling that the members of your Lordships' House would not wish that any one who belonged to it should hold so invidious a position. I explained the situation to the President of the Board of Agriculture, and also to my noble friend the Leader of this House. They both quite understood it, and we parted on the best of terms and without any ill-feeling whatsoever existing between us.
If I might dwell upon one or two of the points raised by the noble Viscount this afternoon, I should like briefly to do so. He spoke upon the difficulty of the labour problem. In my county the position is this. The Prime Minister some few months ago issued a circular inviting the labourers to work an hour a day more. That manifesto or circular has been published and placarded in many of our villages, but the sequel of that exhortation to labourers is this. Lorries under the control of the Government are perambulating our villages inviting the inhabitants to go and work at aerodromes, and promising them £3 a week. It is perfectly true that they are not supposed to take agricultural labourers, but in spite of those instructions a great number of them find their way to these aerodromes. The great difficulty which the farmer finds himself in as a citizen is that industrially he is compelled to do something which he is anxious to do, but which he finds he is unable to do because other citizens who worked for him are enticed away by very large wages and will no longer work for him. The remaining labourers who still work for him, owing to the discrepancy between the wages which they get compared with their fellow-citizens working in the aerodromes, are not willing to come forward and discharge this extra work which has been imposed on the farmers. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, sitting opposite to me. I believe that if one individual tries to take a workman away from another, it is called industrial seduction, and I believe there is a penalty for industrial seduction. [Lord PARMOOR: Hear, hear.] But this is exactly what is going on. Through causes of which I do not know the reason, the whole of the agrarian population is disturbed and disorganised by this unfortunate system of offering large wages for work in aerodromes.
I do not put this forward in the spirit of criticism of His Majesty's Government, but

589
I hope that within the next few weeks they will be able to examine this very serious problem and will try and modify the situation so that the good will and amity which existed before among the agrarian classes may once more be restored. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Jersey, has a Question on the Paper after Easter dealing with this problem, and I dare say by that time some member of His Majesty's Government will be able to reassure us on this point.
It is under these overwhelming labour difficulties that the farmers are called upon in the month of March to plough up still more grass land. I fear that some of them will be unable to comply with those requests, and I do think that they will have a grievance if, as the result of their inability to discharge these ploughing orders, they should be proceeded against by any Executive Committee under 2M of the Defence of the Realm Regulations and brought before a Court of summary jurisdiction. They would then be held up to the contumely of their fellow-citizens, and possibly fined. I hope that the representative of the Board of Agriculture will see that no injustice of this hind is inflicted. When I was at the Board of Agriculture several people who had been fined came to me. I do not think that they minded paying the fine, but what they did feel very strongly was that they should be held up to their fellow citizens as individuals who were not trying to do their best in time of war. Each one had a good reason and an excuse—whether they were right and proper excuses I cannot say. But I hope that that very unpleasant action which has had to be taken in the past may be only exercised with great caution in the future.
I agree thoroughly with the policy of the Government in the conversion of pasture to arable, but I hold this—and I hold it with the noble Viscount (Lord Chaplin)—that the time of year now is too late to continue that practice. This is no attack upon the Government; it is purely a farmers' question. It is a farmers' question to decide how late it is wise to turn pasture into arable, and I think the farming community hold strongly that it is much better to harrow and roll and sow the existing arable land, and concentrate your effort upon that at this present time in the form of an intensive cultivation than to dissipate your efforts in scrambling to get
590
a little more grass under arable, and neglecting the existing arable land.
We have heard a great deal about, arable land producing five and six—and, indeed, I have heard some people say ten—times more fetal than grass land. I do not think anybody denies that. But we must bear this in mind that the crops which you propose to substitute for the grass, and which are of greater feeding value, are all liable to disease—all the wheats, the barleys, the oats, the clover, and the turnips have the fly, and there are the swedes also with the finger and toe; and, when later in the year you try to translate grass into these other feeding stuffs, the more risk you run that these crops may be afflicted with one or other of these particular diseases. And, therefore, the later and the longer you continue ploughing, the greater is the risk you are incurring that you may not get the foodstuffs that you anticipate.
There was rather an interesting publication from the Food Production Department issued during the year 1917. A calculation is made on what is called the starch equivalent for food production, and it is on the basis of the starch equivalent for food production that a relative value of crops is based. It is roughly this, that the starch equivalent for meadow hay which yields 23 cwt, per acre is, in round figures, 1,300 lbs. The starch equivalent of oats on the same acre, at 5 qrs., is 1,500 lbs. per acre, that is to say, 200 lbs. more. Now, it is obviously a great risk to destroy 1,300 lbs. per acre starch equivalent of food in order to get only 1,500 lbs. And, in addition, you have to bear in mind that in getting your crop of oats you have to consume a certain amount of food for the horses and the men employed. I quote these figures only as an illustration on a scientific basis of the extreme caution and the extreme care which should be employed before you determine to destroy the starch equivalent for grass in order to obtain the starch equivalent for any other foods that you require.
I wish to raise one other point before I sit down. I do not know—and I do not ask the representative of the Board of Agriculture to tell us this afternoon—whether it will be the policy of His Majesty's Government in the future to plough up more pasture land, and to turn more pasture land into arable. If it should be so, I ask most seriously of the Board of Agriculture that if they determine piton

591
this policy— and I shall not challenge it—pray let the farmers of England know as soon as possible that you mean to do so; and do inform them of the fact that, if they have to reduce more of their grass land and turn it into arable, due warning and notice, if possible of twelve months, will be given to them before you expect them to make that extensive change in their tillage. Nothing has disturbed the farming community more than being asked at a late time of the year, when they have made the whole of their arrangements for their crops and possibly for their stock, that the balance of their land should be changed through a particular ploughing order placed on that farmer, without, perhaps, an accurate or careful survey having been made.
My final point is with regard to the Executive Committees. I have heard a good deal of complaint of the work performed by committees—not necessarily by Executive Committees, but by all committees; and I strongly urge on the representative of the Board of Agriculture that he should try, between now and the date when fresh grass lands will have to be ploughed up—I am assuming it will be August or September—to have, not necessarily a court of appeal but some body of gentlemen set up in London who can discuss with, and be in a position to give advice to, the Executive Committees in connection with some of the work they discharge. After all, every farm has its own spirit, and each farmer has his own particular way and method of farming. He may have his own ideas and his own way in which he desires to carry out that work. So long as the work is in conformity with the aims and objects of the State that man should be left alone, or interfered with as little as possible. On the other hand, there may be individuals who require more supervision. But up to the present I do not think that there has been sufficient discrimination exercised. If the noble Lord can find some method by which some relation can exist between those who are responsible for putting a ploughing Order upon grass and those who are called upon to carry that Order into effect and put it into a wheat crop or a barley crop, it would be a very good thing. It is very hard on the farmer that an individual should order him to plough up a particular field, on which the farmer may lose a great deal of money, where the individual who is responsible for putting forward that
592
ploughing Order is in no way financially hit. It seems to me that something should be done to rectify that rather unwise proceeding. I know that it is very difficult to find a proper method; but it is one which I commend the noble Lord to consider between now and the autumn. I feel confident, if you could find some individual in whom the farmers place perfect confidence and on whose judgment they are prepared to rely in regard to any ploughing Order which is placed on them, that to the extent to which they believe in that man, to the same degree they will try to carry out effectively the work they are called upon to perform.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, there having been a strong attack made upon local Executive Committees, as a member of an Executive Committee I think it only right that I should state that, in my opinion, some of the criticisms are unfair and somewhat uncalled for. It certainly is not a pleasant duty for anybody to be a member of an Executive Committee. There is no doubt that we tread upon the toes of a good many people, and very often upon their pet theories. But the committees have a duty to perform to the country—namely, to endeavour to get as much land ploughed up as possible. And I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, did not give enough credit to the committees for the fact that their members have local knowledge of the land, and that in addition they are enabled to call in further assistance from valuers and others in order to decide what is the best land to be ploughed. I must confess that the sudden theory of the noble Duke that there should be a body set up in London which could better settle what land is to be ploughed up than those who have local knowledge, does fill me with surprise. If you wish to retard all further ploughing up of land, the way to do it is to set up what the noble Duke would call a court in London to settle what land is to be ploughed up.
There is one thing to which I take exception in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin. He spoke about the late period of ploughing up. If it is a late period, it is because the farmer who has received notice two or three months ago has refused to plough up his land. The responsibility for the lateness does not rest with the Executive Committee but with the individual farmer who has so far steadily refused to obey the Order to plough

593
up his land. I know nothing about the case near Newcastle, mentioned by the noble Viscount, except what he himself said. There seems to have been a great deal of correspondence about the matter; therefore it is clear that the owner in question was warned some time ago that the land had to be ploughed up. We have been told that the question of money is involved; but the Executive Committees have to see that the land produces as much corn as possible. If a farmer is not able to carry out the work, the Executive Committees have been asked by the Board of Agriculture to see that somebody else takes the land in hand. With regard to the question of money, I would remind the House that the War Executive Committees, if a farmer requires money for the purchase of fertilisers, can support his application for the money to a bank, such money to be repaid after the harvest. Consequently we have the power to help what I may call needy farmers to fertilise their land as much as possible.
As a member of an Executive Committee I would say that, when we give our decisions, based on our knowledge and belief, that certain land should be ploughed up, the powers under which we give those decisions should not be suddenly suspended by orders from London or elsewhere, otherwise it will render the position of the members of local Executive Committees—who have difficult and onerous duties to perform as it is—perfectly untenable. It appears to be the case that if anybody has a grievance he appeals to a London authority to override us at once.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, may I say a word, also as a member of a War Executive Committee, in answer to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Chaplin? But before I do so, I should like to express the very deep and personal regret that I feel at the announcement which appeared in this morning's papers. I am sorry to hear that the noble Duke has given up his office as joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture. The noble Duke has been one of the pioneers of ploughing up grass land. He farms, I think, something like 5,000 acres himself; and he has added to the lustre of a glorious name by the fact that he is connected with the great reform in agriculture that your Lordships were good enough to pass a little while ago. It is a great honour to
594
the House to think that this great peaceful revolution was brought into the House of Commons by a statesman who is not only the intimate friend but the agent-in-chief of the vast possessions of one noble Duke, and that it was magnificently carried through all its stars in your Lordships' House by another noble Duke in person.
As regards the Question of my noble friend Lord Chaplin, I listened very attentively to his speech, but he will forgive me if I say—he speaks so very openly and straightforwardly to us that he will not be surprised or resent it if we speak in the same way to him—that he was like a bird fluttering round a tree, not able to make up its mind which branch it was going to settle upon. He talked about every conceivable agricultural topic under the sun except the one in his Question, and that one, which is a most important one, he dismissed in a few sentences. He told us that he had altered all the terms of his Question.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: So I had.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: So he had. When we came down here to-day we found that his second Question was quite different from that which had been kicking about on the Table for over ten days. He gave us the reason why he made a sort of bovril of his first and second Resolutions. He told us that, but he neglected altogether to allude to the fact that the second Resolution, as it at present reads, is a perfectly different one from the one which was on the Paper last night. His Resolution as it originally stood was very carefully and astutely drawn, and it asked that the Government should reconsider the order for ploughing up grass lands until after the hay crop had been taken, so as to ensure that the hay crop should not be lost.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I did not move that.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: That was in the Question which lay on the Table for ten days.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Not so long.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: Certainly for over a week, say nine days; and now he comes down here and says, "Oh! I didn't move that." Of course,

595
he didn't. But it was what we expected to be debated and what we came here to hear him speak upon, and I do not know why he withdrew it, but I rather fancy it was because he discovered suddenly that the Board of Agriculture had already done what he wished them to do. Sir already Lee wrote to the Agricultural War Executive Committees on March 15, asking them to exercise great caution before issuing these orders for ploughing up grassland, especially with regard to heavy land; but now the position is entirely changed. If I may be permitted to use a military expression to my noble friend who has brought so many agricultural field days before the House, I should say that he had entirely changed his front. The whole position is quite altered. The Government are now asked to reconsider the Order for ploughing and to reconsider the possibility of suspending the Order for ploughing of such land. Why? It is the old reason—because the hay crops would be lost. What does suspending mean? It means temporarily abandoning or cancelling the Order. As a member of an Agricultural Committee I entirely agree with Viscount Galway that suspension or abandonment or cancellation of the Order ought to be resisted at all costs.
I referred the question to the Agricultural War Committee of which I am a member. It is a very fairly representative Committee. Eight or ten of the best farmers in the county are members of it, and we have the land adviser of Sir Arthur Lee when he lived in the county, and the Lord Lieutenant of the county, on the Committee, and our chairman is a man who almost to a certainty will be next chosen as chairman of the county council whenever that man should be wanted. I referred this question to my colleagues, and this is what they unanimously say, "We have already acted on the lines of Sir A. Lee's letter." In fact, we have done what my noble friend up to last night wished the Government to do. The general feeling of the Committee is that there is all the difference between those cases where orders to plough up grass were issued some months ago, and those cases where orders are being issued now, and that was the point so well put by my noble friend opposite. In the first place, the farmer has often only himself to blame for the present position, and he should be made to run all reasonable risk to produce corn. But even in the latter case what is going
596
to happen where the orders are being issued now? The opinion of our Agricultural Committee is that it is more than questionable at this late hour whether a farmer should be told to try and risk it, especially in the case of heavy land.
Now this cancelling of the Order—this indiscriminate cancelling of Orders—means that the farmer who has acted patriotically will find himself with his grass broken up, and his defiant neighbour will come under my noble friend's umbrella and will retain his grass land intact. What does Lord Chaplin's, Motion really mean? It really, if you come to boil it down, means a want of confidence in the men on the spot, and I hope that the Government will under no circumstances listen to the advice, counsel,
and hopes of my noble friend, but that it will rely, as Lord Galway said, on the common sense of the Agricultural War Committees, who are doing such great work in carrying out the provisions of the Food Production Act, which is a great peaceful agricultural revolution, and will if well and courageously administered mean the salvation of the whole country.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I should like to add one word in defence of the Executive Committees. I believe that these Committees all over England are as good practical agriculturists as are anywhere to be found; and while I regret to hear the news regarding the noble Duke, I still absolutely disagree with him in imagining that any central body in London can be a better judge of these matters than the executive committees. To refer, however, very briefly, to the actual subject before us, I should like to ask the Government to consider very closely this question of labour. Undoubtedly a great deal of delay has occurred as regards getting sufficient and efficient labour to cultivate the already existing arable land and the fresh land broken up. A great number of promises have been made on this point. We have been told, week after week, that we shall receive lists of soldiers available to go and work on the land from different headquarters in the county, and when it comes to be examined a large number of the soldiers are found to be absolutely inefficient for work on the land.
At the present moment there is an enormous wastage of labour and money going on with regard to tractor ploughing. I do not think I should be wrong if I said there are not ten, or twenty, or fifty, but

597
hundreds of men, soldiers and others, in this country who have been sent out with tractors or to learn tractor ploughing, who are doing absolutely nothing. At this moment there is great difficulty in getting then transferred from tractor ploughing to other labour which they can do. I believe this is due to some esprit-de corps in Departments which prevents one Department from handing things over to another. Owing to this and overlapping there are hundreds of men absolutely idle who could be doing most excellent work. I call attention to this ease because the labour question is most important. Having 300 acres of land to break up in the Fen, which can grow beautiful crops but requires a large team to work it, two months ago I applied for German prisoners. I have not got them to-day. I believe there is some delay. It disheartens men who are trying to do their best that so much labour should be wasted. I think it is most important that the Food Production Department should recognise the gravity of the labour question and should try to meet it as best they can. It is impossible for the Food Production Department to lay down any rule to say that a man must stay on the land, and cannot go to an aerodrome. Unfortunately, wages are a great deal higher at the aerodrome, and I do not blame the horseman, who can earn £3 a week at the aerodrome, for going to the aerodrome instead of remaining on the farm at £2 a week. If there is a lot more laud broken up the Food Production Department must recognise that labour must be provided.
In conclusion, I would say that I cannot agree with the second part of the noble Viscount's Question with regard to the Orders to break up land. As a member of two Executive Committees, I can only say that I know of cases where men have defied the Committees. They never meant to carry out the Orders, and they do not intend to do so to-day. If the Government begin letting them off an outcry would be caused throughout the country. It would be unfair that the farmer who had been patriotic and done his best, and had perhaps had to buy horses and secure labour in order to obey the commands of the Executive Committee, should get no benefit, while other men who openly defied the Committees should be let off. I hope the Government will be very loth to let these people off. Of course it is getting late now to plough up the land. I should
598
like to commandeer their hay crop, and, when they have got the hay crop, to turn some cultivators in, and charge these people with the cost. Perhaps that would teach them to be patriotic in future.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there are two points to which I should like to call your attention, and they are concrete points. First of all, as regards the County Agricultural Executive Committees, I may remind the noble Viscount that he was one of those who introduced into the Act an appeal from those Committees to an independent surveyor; I think he is one of those who saw at that time that you can only get fairness in matters of this kind by having an appeal to some independent person. Quite apart from what the noble Duke has said, as soon as the Act comes into operation, which will be about next December, the appeal will also be brought into operation. For my part, I think an appeal is most necessary. I do not want to make any attack on the Executive Committees, but it really is a question very often between them and an individual farmer, and it is right that the question should be settled by some outside expert authority. I think the noble Viscount must have forgotten the attitude he himself took on the matter.
The second point is this. I want to give an illustration which I know to be perfectly true. It is an illustration from the county in which the noble Marquess is a member of the Executive Committee. The position was that there was a farmer who had about 900 acres, about one-third grass and about two-thirds arable. He had been advised that his farm was what is known as a "balanced" farm—that is, one having the proportion of arable and grass which would give the maximum production as regards corn, beef, and mutton. That is an important matter, very often overlooked in these mere theoretical calculations. Although he put forward that view he wrote to the Executive Committee and said that he would agree with their agent to plough up any quantity of grass land they required—a very proper thing to do. That was, roughly, some time last autumn. Having come to terms with the Agricultural Executive Committee he set to work to plough up the grass land which they asked him to plough up. It was not a question of a compulsory order, because he came very fairly to an arrangement with them. The amount ploughed up was more than

599
the one-ninth to which the President of the Board of Agriculture called attention. In addition to that, in order to comply with the requirements he bought horses at really exorbitant prices—he gave 150 guineas for a horse which in the old days he could have got for forty guineas—and he set to work to get a tractor plough. It was very necessary to settle this in time because he had a very large stock of sheep and cattle. He sold a good many, leaving those for which he would have sufficient food, assuming he was not required to plough up more grass land
What happened? About the second week in February this year they required him to plough up another sixty or seventy acres of grass land. He pointed out that it was late, and that it meant almost starvation to his young cattle and particularly to the only flock of sheep, Border Leicesters, which are grass sheep. He was informed that there would be a compulsory order if he did not do it, and he would be subject to the contumely and fine of which the Duke had spoken. I do not think the farmer dislikes the fine so much as the lecture with which the magistrate, in high and haughty tones, generally accompanies the fine. He set to work and he has nearly completed it. In the second week in March there was a further order to plough up more grass land. He wrote to the Executive Committee stating that this was mere loss and wanton waste, and that it was quite impossible in this country to grow cereals on land ploughed up so late. They wrote back and said "Try potatoes." He replied that he had tried potatoes several times, and had never got back in crop as much as the seed. This particular farmer has never heard of any withdrawal of these Orders by the Executive Committee of the county of Bucks. What his liabilities may be perhaps I shall have to ascertain myself some day. As a matter of fact, an application was made to the Board of Agriculture in connection with these Orders, and they gave the answer which I think was the only answer they could give—that they had nothing to do with them. They delegated the whole power to the County Executive Committee, and, therefore, could not interfere in any way. Whether the Board of Agriculture have that power under the Defence of the Realm Act I am very doubtful. If the question is raised some day these Orders, in my opinion, may be found to be illegal from top to bottom.
600
The point I put is this. You have a farm in which the farmer came to terms with the Agricultural Committee last autumn. That is quite right; they must look ahead. Fresh orders are given in February and he could only protest and try to see what he could do. There were fresh orders again in March, which is much too late as regards the ploughing up of any grass land.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, no.
LORD PARMOOR: I can vouch for the fact. And what is the result of orders of that kind? I am not going to attack, generally, the Executive Committees. There are committees and committees. They act really on the advice of their executive officers. No Executive Committee goes and looks at a farm, and I have never seen the Executive Committee of my county looking over the farms. They have an executive officer to advise them.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I certainly did not mean to indicate to the noble Lord that I was attacking the Executive Committees. Far from it. I was protesting against the view that it was too late to plough in the month of April.
LORD PARMOOR: You think grass land ought to be ploughed up in April?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It certainly can be. In 1917, if my recollection is correct, something like 200,000 acres were ploughed up in April with success.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: May I point out to the noble Lord that, with regard to the question of nobody seeing the land, the District Committee go round and report to the Executive Committee, and, if there is any doubt, they hear always the views of the aggrieved person.
LORD PARMOOR: If the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, thinks you get any advantage by ploughing up grass land in April, that is a matter of opinion; but as regards statistics, I have seen statistics which are adverse to the ploughing up of grass land in April. And as to the 200,000 acres turning out well, the report which I read was that in some cases land that was ploughed up in April was an utter failure. What I am protesting against is this. Let the farmer know in

601
time what he is to do. Like every other business man he has to look to the future. Let him know what he has to do in order that he may make provision for the next year, and then do not, at subsequent stages, put new orders upon him which it is almost impossible for him to comply with, and, if he does, upsets the whole forecast he has made for his farm. That is the point I make. I entirely agree with much that the noble Duke has said with regard to the difficulties, but I am giving him a case where the farmer did not mind the expenditure. His object was to get the maximum production and he expended the money necessary. What is objected to is the issue of orders too late. I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, has said more than once on this question, and I think it is a matter which requires great care.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: My Lords, before an answer is given to the Question of the noble Viscount I should like to say one word in hearty support of my noble friend, and especially in support of the second part of his Question. I happen to have returned from the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire district, and during the week-end I had an opportunity of discussing the situation with a large number of tenant farmers. In spite of the sweeping assertion made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, and the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, as to the blacklegs only benefitting by such an Order, I am bound to admit, so far as this district is concerned, that when the statistics and reports come to be seen it will be found, taken as a whole, that the graziers and the farmers in the grazing and dairy-farming districts have risen to the occasion and are doing their best. From the nature of the situation, and for the reasons already referred to by my noble friend Lord Chaplin—the fact of its being grass land, the want of the necessary agricultural implements, having to buy cart horses to carry out the ploughing, and the dearth of labour—it is to a great extent impossible for all the land already scheduled to be ploughed up in that particular district at once. As one farmer described it to me, it seems a wicked waste and a sin that land should be left perfectly unproductive this summer. If it was ploughed now it would not have had the advantage of being broken up by the winter frost and the weather, and it would be just as suitable for seed in the autumn if
602
it was ploughed up immediately after the hay crop was taken off it. For that reason alone I sincerely hope that the Local Agricultural Committees, who are doing their work sincerely and well, may be told that if they think fit they may in certain cases allow this to be done.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, although I have been instructed by the Government to answer the Question which has been put on the Paper by the noble Viscount, I am thankful to say I have not been invited to represent the Board of Agriculture permanently in this House. Before I make some remarks on behalf of the Government on the noble Viscount's Question, I should like to be allowed to associate myself with what the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, said with regard to the noble Duke's resignation of his office as Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture. I am sure there is no one in this House, sitting on either side, who does not regret very much his resignation. We are all aware that he was a perfect master of this subject, as was only natural from the fact that he is not only a great landowner but a farmer on a large scale, and has, I understand, conducted many interesting experiments on his property from patriotic motives. Moreover, I think your Lordships will always admire the way in which the noble Duke, when he represented the Department in this House, always stood up for the interests of the Department and the interests of agriculture when they appeared to be in danger.
With regard to the Question which the noble Viscount has put on the Paper, I am instructed to inform the House that the position as to the labour for the land is at the present time in the following state. In addition to the farmers and all those labourers who are exempt from military service, or who have been retained on the land for food production and not sent into the Army, there are at the present time 22,000 soldiers who were allotted for agricultural services last spring. There are also 27,000 skilled agriculturists and 10,000 unskilled men from the Army, who were allotted to agriculture later in the year 1917. There are also 8,000 prisoners of war, 1,600 aliens released from internment, and 250,000, partly half-time and partly full-time, women. Besides these there are to come, under arrangements already made, 2,000 skilled soldier agriculturists, 3,000

603
German prisoners of war, and an undefined number of aliens who are to be released from internment. As to the future there can be no doubt in the opinion of the Department but that the new labour which has been brought on the land is steadily increasing in efficiency. The Board hope to secure such additional labour as, with the seasonal work in prospect, will enable the cultivation and the harvest of the extra crops to be successfully dealt with. That is the answer of the Board as to the first part of the Question put on the Paper by the noble Viscount.
With regard to the second part of the Question, in some counties I am informed that the executive committees have not yet completed the issue of all their orders, and consequently notices are still being served for ploughing up more land. The Department are not prepared to admit that the time has yet passed for ploughing certain classes of land for spring sowing. Of course it is late, but, as the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal pointed out, last year a great deal of land was ploughed up at a still later period, and the experience of last year shows that there were many cases in which good crops of corn were obtained from land which was ploughed later in the season than the present date. Even if the corn crop cannot be sown it will be possible to grow a fodder crop or root crop which will help to make good the shortage of feeding-stuffs, and which will also get the land ready for corn next year when the need for food will be equally urgent. The necessity for producing all the food possible this year is so urgent that the Government cannot afford to lose the chance of increasing the crop for the harvest of 1918 in order to allow grass to remain. At the same time the Board feel sure that the executive committees will act with ordinary common sense in regard to the issue of Orders. Lord Lincolnshire, Lord Ancaster, Lord Galway and others addressed your Lordships with all the weight that their authority commands in this House, and the Board feel sure that the executive committees will not require land to be cultivated for the harvest of 1918 unless there is a reasonable probability that it will produce a crop. The committees have been instructed that in the case of heavy grass land special caution should be exercised in the issue of orders to plough prior to the hay harvest, and the circular to which I think the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, referred—the circular letter
604
from Sir Arthur Lee dated March 15, and sent to the Agricultural Executive Committees—confirms that point. It is probably in the hands of any of your Lordships who are interested in this matter, but if any noble Lord has not received one I am sure that the Department will be most happy to send it to him at once.
As to dairy farming districts, the Board consider that by ploughing up some of the grass land and growing more crops gain rather than loss will ensue. Those crops are, of course, often of great help to the producers of summer milk, since they provide food at a critical period of the year when pasture is often deficient. It must be remembered that feeding-stuffs cannot now be purchased in the necessary quantities, and dairy farmers must look forward to breaking up part of their grass land and cultivating crops suitable to feed to cows in the winter months.
A considerable number of interesting speeches have been made this afternoon on various topics not entirely germane—that is the expression which the noble Viscount opposite used—to the points covered by his Question. Into those other topics I hope that the House will excuse my not entering this evening, because as I have explained I am answering merely as a stop gap this afternoon. I have no doubt that when the House meets again after the Easter Recess a successor to the noble Duke will have been found qualified to deal with any of these points which may be raised in debate. Without notice I am afraid that I am not so competent to deal with them. I noted, however, one or two points raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate upon which I might perhaps say one word. With regard to the case of Mr. Dent, to which the noble Viscount alluded in his opening remarks, I will certainly take care that the matter shall be inquired into, and the Board of Agriculture will inform the noble Viscount of the result. I think that the noble Viscount also complained that at one time the Government had stated that in order to stimulate farmers to plough up as much grass as they could they would guarantee a fixed corn price and a fixed labourer's wage at 25 s. a week. He went on to say that some friends of his in the agricultural world had been much disturbed on finding that in the case of the county of Norfolk the other day 30 s. had been fixed by the Wages Board. My recollection of the

605
matter is that 25 s. in the first instance was merely named as a minimum.
The statement made by the Duke of Marlborough and by my noble friend Lord Ancaster as to the great hardship that is inflicted on farmers by labourers being enticed away to work in the aerodromes at wages far higher than they have been paid on the land, is certainly a most important point, and one that I hope the Board of Agriculture have not lost sight of. At all events I will convey to them that the matter was mentioned by several of your Lordships in debate. The answers that I have given are those that the Department have instructed me to make this afternoon, and I hope that any noble Lords who have raised points that I have not replied to adequately will recognise that it was only at the last minute that I was instructed to answer and will excuse my deficiencies.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Chaplin ever did a greater service to the cause of his country in this war or to agricultural production than when he pressed the Government last summer on the question of labour. The attitude that he was obliged to assume then was one that appeared to be attacking the Government, but as a matter of fact what he really was doing was supporting to the best of his ability the Government, and strengthening them to get that supply of labour which alone would enable the policy of increased production to be carried out. I think that it is very largely due to what my noble friend then did that Lord Milner was able to achieve a triumph and procure labour for the Board of Agriculture, and that so much work has been done since that time in bringing land under cultivation. That being so, I thought my noble friend was abundantly justified in returning to the subject this evening and raising again this question of labour.
If more land is to be ploughed up for 1919—and here I would strenuously endorse what the noble Duke says about this—let us know what the programme of 1919 is to be as soon as possible, and if it is to be a programme of increased ploughing of land the labour must be found for it. I am very glad to see Lord Rothermere upon the Bench opposite, because, though he is not personally responsible, his Department is to my knowledge at the present moment the cause of the greatest danger to increased food production in this country.
606
I was presiding yesterday at a meeting of delegates of the War Executive Committees of the whole of England and Wales, and I may say that from almost every county the same story came, or certainly from a large majority of the counties—that the whole labour situation was being upset again by the contractors who are building aerodromes. One man told us that an excellent horseman of his, a man far over military age, who had been with him for many years and was earning 35 s. a week, had been seduced to an aerodrome, where he was doing unskilled labour, and the first week he brought back
£6. How could you blame the man for going? It is impossible to blame the man if he does not resist temptation such as that. What farmer can compete against such wages and why are such wages offered? As I understand, the reason is that the contractor is paid a percentage on the cost of construction, and therefore he has got no inducement to keep the cost of construction down. The testimony that was brought forward was so strong, so universal, that I implore His Majesty's Government to look into this and see whether something cannot be done. At the very moment when they are trying to help agriculture by supplying German prisoners and untrained persons to supplement the personnel of the farm, the most trained men are being taken away by the contractors working on aerodromes and similar Government work. Therefore the labour question may again become urgent, owing to causes which were not foreseen and not suspected.
I do not doubt that there are cases of hardship in these orders to plough up grass, or that the War Agricultural Executive Committees have sometimes made mistakes. It is quite impossible that such a work could be done without mistakes, and without cases of hardship. But I ask your Lordships to remember that the whole of this work has been done for the country, not by officials, not from a central Department in Whitehall, but in every county by small committees, which, I believe, almost invariably contain the most experienced farmers, land agents, or land owners in that county, men who are as cognisant of the local conditions as it is possible for a committee to be. So far as I can gather or judge, they have done their work extremely well and with a marvellous measure of success, and I think your Lordships would do well to trust to them. I cannot believe that any tribunal in London, such as was

607
suggested by my noble friend the Duke of Marlborough, could possibly with advantage revise the decisions of the War Executive Committees in their own counties. Within my own experience the number of mistakes they have made is very small. They may have made mistakes, they may make mistakes again, but, after all, the great question is to get more production of food, and more production of cereals above everything else. That is the one thing on which the whole war may turn—cereals. And therefore pressure must be applied, continuously applied. And, after all, it is a matter of opinion and a matter of the conditions of the case whether it is or whether it is not advisable to plough up land in March and April. Last year many of us could not touch our grass lands until March or April. I ploughed up grass lands both in March and in April, and I got quite a fair crop. But this season has been the most wonderful season that we have had ever since I farmed, and I have been farming now for more than thirty years. The burden of proof is on the man who has had the Orders to plough and has not ploughed, unless those Orders were given only a few days ago.
Therefore I say that although there are undoubtedly hard cases I believe your Lordships would do well to give your support to the War Executive Committees in each county, and I think you will not be disappointed. I believe that when the returns of next harvest come in the result will be surprising—far better than anybody really yet anticipates. And the credit will be due to the President of the Board of Agriculture in the first place, to Sir Arthur Lee in the second place, to the War Executive Committees all over the country in the third place, and, last but not least, to my noble friend who has moved this Motion to-night. Because I verily believe that, unless he had constantly kept before the Government the points that must be observed in order to make this policy successful, the Board of Agriculture would not have had the authority behind it or the strength behind it to secure from the other Departments of the Government that labour which alone has made the policy possible.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, one word or two only in reply. I have listened with great interest to the various speeches which have been made. Some noble Lords, who have disappeared with the
608
exception of Lord Lincolnshire, Lord Galway. and Lord Ancaster, appeared to think I had made some attack upon the War Executive Committees. Nothing could possibly be further from my intention. Nor do I think that I could with justice be accused of having done so. I do not believe anybody appreciates more than myself the work which I know the great majority of them have done. All that I did was to call attention to a particular case for which I asked consideration, and I added that it was typical of many other instances which have been submitted to me. Every speaker has admitted to-night that mistakes undoubtedly have occurred, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for saying that inquiries shall be made into the particular case that I cited. That is all that I desire. That was the only reason why I raised the question at all.
I must say a word of sympathy for the noble Marquess sitting upon my right (Lord Lincolnshire). The noble Marquess insisted upon discussing the Question that I have withdrawn. I told him why I withdrew it when I began: because, having been to see Sir Arthur Lee, a very old friend and colleague of my own, and discussed the matter with him, I learned that it would have been unfair to the Board and a waste of the time of the House if I had pursued the Questions which I had originally put on the Paper; and having seen him, I put down one of them, but omitted the other two. I am full of sympathy for the noble Marquess, because he evidently came down with a speech prepared for reply to another Question, and that, I think, is probably the reason why he took such great umbrage at the course I have pursued. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AERODROME CONTRACTS.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to circumstances connected with a contract at a certain aerodrome, and to ask His Majesty's Government what are the terms of the contract, and what Department of Government is responsible for it; and, if necessary, to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I haw felt it my duty to draw public attention to this matter by putting a Question in the

609
House, and appropriately enough, it seems, after what has been said by the noble Duke who is sitting on the Cross Bench, and also by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I have put the matter generally in my Question, because I found great difficulty in tracing what Department was responsible for the particular contract in question. I tried the Board of Works first of all, but I found it did not concern them. Subsequently I gave information to the Air Ministry and to the Munitions Department; so that I hope I have conveyed to the Department which is concerned the name of the place where the contract was placed. I did not think it would be in order to publish, the name of the place as it might he giving away information.
What I complain of is the system on which these contracts are given. They are given on the lines that the contractor is paid by a percentage on the amount of the cost. On March 4, I think it was, the Air Ministry wrote to a certain Farmers' Federation to the effect that they noted the protest of the Federation, but that, having regard to the exceptionally difficult circumstances which now obtain and the urgency of getting the special work of aerodrome construction started promptly and executed quickly, no form of contract other than that of payment of cost plus a percentage was possible at present. But an assurance was given that all expenditure was carefully checked, and that no contractor was able to fix rates arbitrarily or to incur unlimited expenses. The expression that "all expenditure is carefully checked" is somewhat vague. There are two kinds of checking—checking in an office, and checking on the spot. Those are two very different things. I should say that any system of check on the spot in the specific case of which I am thinking does not exist.
I had occasion recently, at a sitting of a Tribunal, to comment upon the procedure at this particular aerodrome; and from the body of the Court there rose one after another several gentlemen who corroborated what I had said, and who were full of complaints as to the system that was being pursued in various places in my own county; in the first place, by attracting away men by giving a rate of wage much in excess of that given in the neighbourhood; and, secondly, the great waste of time and money incurred because the men were not working hard. I do not complain of men going away from the employment in which
610
they are given the ordinary wages of agriculture and going to some contractor who is ready to pay them more. What I complain of is that they are not fully employed when they are there, and that the Government—which will state, I fancy, that they cannot get this work done except by a system of percentage on cost—does not employ a sufficiently close scrutiny of the system that is going on in these various works. Consequently men are being taken on unnecessarily for the amount of work to be done, and are being paid extravagant wages, and this system does not contribute towards economy in public expenditure. If the contractor is left free to pursue his own sweet will unchecked by the Department, human nature being what it is, possibly he will engage more labour than is necessary, and not insist upon that labour being constantly employed, with the result that those works are costing a great deal more than necessary, and that the contractor is obtaining a very much higher profit than that to which he is entitled.
The result of my remarks at the Tribunal was that the Press took notice of the matter; and following upon that I received a great deal of information from all parts of the country. At this late hour of the evening I will not trouble your Lordships with quotations; but in every case allegations are made which, if they are true, I think the Government ought to regret, because it is the fault of their system. If these statements are true, they are verymuch to the discredit of the Department concerned because they do not keep a sufficient check over the contractor. Goodness knows one does not want to see a larger body of Government employees than is necessary; but under a Government system which allows a contractor to be paid by a percentage on the cost of production it is obvious that, if that cost of production is to be properly kept in order, there must be a severe system of check. In the particular case to which I am referring there was no such system of checking. That is not fair to the taxpayer. It is not fair to the neighbourhood, which is losing men from other classes of work; and in addition these men are not producing as much for the wages paid to them as ought to be the case.
I have just looked at the evening papers and I see an article headed "Payment by Results." I strongly recommend to the Department concerned with the giving out

611
of these contracts that they should study that article carefully; for certainly in the case of the information which has been supplied to me the system of payment by results is not being followed; and no attempt at a severe system of check is being made to secure payment by results. I have received my information from various parts of the country—Midland, Eastern, and Southern. I do not propose to read it, but I can supply it to the member of the Government who will reply, if he so desires. The allegations are really perfectly astounding as to the amount of wages given. I cannot prove the allegations, therefore I do not produce them as evidence; but in the specific case to which I refer in my Question I could prove, if necessary in a Court of Law, that an employee of mine left me—I do not complain because he left, although he had no reason for leaving as he himself acknowledged—and went to a neighbouring aerodrome where he was given, not at his own job, because he was a horseman, but as an ordinary labourer, nearly double as much as I had been giving him, and at the end of a week—he was a very honest man—he came back. He said he could not stand the waste of time which was going on there, that he put in in ordinary work in two hours more than he put in in the whole day at the aerodrome, and that at one time he was throwing a few bricks in one direction and then occupied the remaining time by throwing them back again. At the end of a week he was so sick of it that he came back to me at the ordinary rate of wage. There is an honest man. If it is true—and in this particular case it is true—that this kind of thing is going on, I do not use too strong language if I say it is perfectly abominable that the taxpayer should be robbed in this way.
I have put down at the end of my Question that if necessary I will move for Papers. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me such information as will not necessitate that, but I am certainly not going to allow this matter to drop. It is far too important. It is not merely discouraging to other employers of labour in the neighbourhood, as pointed out by Lord Selborne and the Duke of Marlborough, but it is prostituting the whole system of labour in this country. If men are to be allowed to take to jobs of this kind, to be paid enormous wages, and not to be expected to do work, it is absolutely unsound in principle and is going to do a great deal of harm to this country, and it
612
will be necessary for me, if I cannot get the information I want, which is as regards the system and the check upon that system, to pursue the matter a great deal further, and to bring before your Lordships a mass of evidence, which I have no doubt I can do, from persons who have the experience which, in the case I have mentioned, I possess.
LORD ROTHERMERE: My Lords, the best reply that I can make to the noble Lord's speech is to tell your Lordships the policy of the Air Ministry in regard to contracts for the construction of aerodromes. The Ministry would very much have liked to base all these contracts on the payment of a lump sum for the work done, but this is not practicable under present conditions. It was found that no contractor of standing would enter into such a contract, except he was allowed a very large sum for contingencies and profit—such a sum, in fact, as would enormously enhance the cost. Moreover, before undertaking such a contract the contractor, in order to frame an estimate, would require in the case of large aerodromes a period of two months or more to enable him to have levels taken, to provide for drawings and a complete schedule of all there was, and to have all the quantities measured. We could not spare any time for this purpose.
There is no work being undertaken in this country at the present moment of more importance than the construction of aerodromes. We are very much behind-hand in this work, and we shall be exceedingly fortunate if all the construction work is finished in time to meet our urgent necessities. No fewer than 130 aerodromes are under construction. Instead of the "bulk payment" contract, we have been reluctantly compelled to adopt the "percentage and cost" for the contract. To work this as satisfactorily as possible, all contractors are very carefully selected. No contractor is allowed to earn more than a profit of 4 per cent. (which includes all his administrative charges) on the first £250,000 cost of charges and material, falling to 3 per cent. on the second £250,000, and 2½ per cent. on all sums in excess of half a million pounds. These costs are carefully checked by technical people and all accounts are audited by the Finance Department of the Air Ministry. I am not satisfied that this check is sufficient and am instituting further checks to meet some of the criticisms I have received.

613
Coming to the matter of wages, I wish to impress upon the house that, however exorbitant the rate of wages may sound, no wages are paid at more than the trade union rate in the district where the work is being done, or such rate of wages as is allowed as a result of arbitration before the Committee on Production. In a great many of these agricultural districts of England for work on aerodromes the ordinary rate of pay is 52 s., 58 s., and in one case 64 s. per week, but it is the standard trade union rate which the Government are agreed to pay. I have had to explain this matter carefully in quite a large number of letters. Complaints have reached me from many quarters. I know that even as compared with the 25 s. a week rate of wages now given to agricultural labourers, the wages paid in the construction of aerodromes in country districts seem entirely out of proportion. This may be so, but it is not a matter which the Air Ministry can really control. Like other Government Departments, we must pay the trade union rate of wages, and if alongside an aerodrome under construction, agricultural labourers are only earning 25 s. a week, whilst men using a pick and shovel are earning more than double this rate of wages on aerodrome work, it is unfortunate, but it cannot be helped.
We are by no means satisfied with the amount of work that is being done in these aerodromes, but it is an extremely difficult question to deal with. I am afraid that in regard to all Government work throughout the country, whether shipbuilding or the construction of aerodromes, there is not that same amount of work being done by individual workmen which we should all like to see. The matter is receiving our most earnest attention. We have in charge of all this work an Administrator General of the Air Ministry, one of the most competent men in this country, Sir John Hunter, who, I am informed, is quite the best constructioner engineer in this country, and who gives his unremitting attention not only to the work itself but to all such points as have been raised by Lord Harris and the Earl of Seaborne.
LORD HARRIS: I am greatly obliged for the reply of the noble Lord, and upon his assurance that he is not satisfied himself with the check that is being kept on this expenditure, and his promise that he will look into it—for it is quite obvious from the
614
reply supplied by the Department that he certainly, in the particular case to which I referred, and I suppose also his Department, are entirely ignorant of the facts—I shall not move for Papers. The noble Lord laid a great deal of stress upon the importance of building aerodromes and the particular character of that class of building. In the particular case to which I have referred the aerodrome was built months ago and finished, and the only work where this man was given this exorbitant rate of pay for ordinary labour, and not skilled labour, was to shift a few huts and dig a trench for a water pipe. For that he was given, I imagine, double the rates for agricultural wages. I do not move for Papers.

TITHE.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is now possible to make any statement as to the probability of the introduction of a Bill on the subject of tithe. The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, but for the lateness of the hour I should have wished to state why it is so extremely urgent that I should receive an answer to the question which I have upon the Paper.
The rise in tithe has created new conditions which require most careful handling, and the Government have in the House of Commons stated on more than one occasion that the matter is under consideration and that legislation will probably be passed at an early date. The matter does not brook delay.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in answer to the Question of the most rev. Primate, I have to inform hint that the matter is receiving the most careful attention of the Govermnent, and it is hoped that a statement may be shortly. His Majesty's Government realise, as well as the most rev. Primate, that it is a question of no small importance, and I should hope that when the House resumes after the Easter holidays whoever represents the Board of Agriculture in this house will be able to give the most rev. Primate a rather more explicit answer than that which, I am sorry to say, is the only one I am authorised to give.

BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
  CHEPSTOW GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
    BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That Lord St. Levan be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Barry-more; read and agreed to.

    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
    First Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday the 11th of April next.

    ST. OLAVE'S CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
    WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
    SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That Lord Blyth be proposed to the House
    616
    as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Lam-bourne; read and agreed to.
    House adjourned during pleasure. House resumed.

    ROYAL COMMISSION.
    The following two Bills received the Royal Assent—

    Marriage Hours (Ireland).

    Overseas Trade Department (Secretary).

    THE EASTER RECESS.
    Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday, April 9.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    [From Minutes of March 20.]

    SCARISBRICK ESTATE.
    Petition for a Bill together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.
    House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.