Lords Sitting of 7 July 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CITANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE TREATY OF PEACE.
MESSAGE FROM THE SPANISH SENATE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I have to announce that I have received for transmission to your Lordships' House the following. Message from the Spanish Senate—
"The Spanish Senate, on the proposal of the President, agreed the day before yesterday under general approval—firstly, that the Upper House has heard with satisfaction that the war has been terminated by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles; secondly, that the satisfaction of the Upper House and their congratulations on the termination of the war be conveyed to the representatives of analogous or similar Chambers of the countries which constitute the Allied and Associated Powers."
In conformity with precedent on such occasions I have taken upon myself, on your Lordships' behalf, to direct that a suitable reply be sent to the Spanish Senate.

SHOREHAM-BY-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CROWFORD): My Lords, on behalf of the Lord President of the Council, Earl Curzon of Kedleston, I beg to make the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore) be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House in the absence of the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) owing to indisposition; that the Lord Kintore do take the Chair in all
198
Committees of the Whole House, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House; that the Lord Kintore do also take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills and other matters, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MILK PRICES.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to move to resolve—
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report as soon as possible on the discrimination made by the Ministry of Food between the price of milk fixed for producers in Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset, and the rest of England, whereby such producers lose 2d. a gallon on their milk.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be within the recollection of the House that a little while ago I was able to induce the Ministry of Food to lay upon the Table the reasons for which they had penalised tire four Western counties—Devon, Dorset, Somerset, and Cornwall—to the extent of 2d. per gallon for every gallon of milk exported from those counties. Lately another Report has been issued which I gather is the Report of the whole Committee of the Ministry of Food on this question, and they confirm the Report of the Travelling Commission. This Report is headed, "Evidence and Recommendations of the Travelling Commission." There is, of course, no evidence in the proper sense of the term. I do not complain of that, as the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Food in this House told me when the Return was granted that it would be impossible to give any of the evidence, because no evidence in the ordinary sense of the word had been taken.
I think, at the very beginning, that I might take objection as to the way in which the Commission did their work. When such a very serious penalty was to be put on certain counties one would have thought there would be a full note taken of the evidence and of the reasons on which these recommendations were made. What has taken place strengthens my plea to your Lordships that you should appoint a Select Committee in order that evidence might be taken in a proper way, and that

199
those who are penalised by this should be able to see the grounds and reasons given, together with the evidence; because in this Report it is simply the ipse dixit of the Travelling Commission, confirmed by the full Committee.
Since I last spoke on this question in the House great agricultural bodies, who represent practically the whole of agriculture throughout the length and breadth of the country, have passed resolutions condemning the action of the Ministry of Food in this matter. The Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, to which Society many of your Lordships belong, either as members of the Council or as members of the Society, have unanimously condemned the imposition of this reduction of 2d. per gallon in the Western counties. Then, again, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, with two dissentients, condemned this penalisation, and the Council of the British Dairy Farmers Association also. Those three great Agricultural bodies unite in condemning the action taken by the Ministry of Food; and then last, but not least, the National Farmers Union have unanimously condemned this penalisation of the four counties. There we have a great and important body indeed, and I think the Government will be inclined to take some notice that they unanimously condemn this imposition and say it is most unfair and unjust—that it is based upon insufficient grounds and insufficient evidence.
Then, I think it was last month, in another place, all the members of those four Western counties signed a letter addressed to the Leader of the House of Commons, asking that they might have an independent inquiry into this matter, for they, like these great agricultural bodies, were of opinion that there had not been a fair and impartial inquiry. I regret to say that that application for an independent inquiry was turned down by Mr. Bonar Law, who apparently thinks that the action of the Ministry is based upon quite sufficient grounds. I myself had originally meant to ask for an independent inquiry in the same way, but when I found that in another place it was turned down I thought that the only thing was to appeal to your Lordships directly to appoint a Select Committee, because no doubt the Government would have refused an independent inquiry.
I would now like to turn to the Report which has lately been issued by the Ministry of Food. It is Command Paper No. 205, and is an Interim Report as to the Establishment of Differential Zones and the Estimated Cost of Production of Milk in the Summer of 1919. We find there that this Travelling Commission, which went out to investigate this matter, only had some fourteen meetings between February 17 and March 24, and, as a member of that Commission stated at the Central Chamber of Agriculture, they travelled at night and held inquiries during the day, and therefore so far as knowing what was going on in the districts through which they travelled and the climatic conditions it was impossible for them to know anything. It is rather curious to note that on an important question of this sort, which embraced not only England but Scotland as well, they found it necessary to hold only fourteen meetings between the dates I have mentioned.
There is another rather curious statement in this Report. They said—
"It was found that a very small proportion of the 7,500 forms sent to the Divisional Food Commissioners for distribution to producers was actually completed and returned."
It is a startling thing to think that only that number of forms were circulated. In my own county of Somerset there are 4,500 farms of between fifty and 300 acres, and if we add those under fifty acres, which also produce milk, there are at least 5,000 milk producers in Somerset. Yet the Travelling Commission only issued 7,500 forms to the farmers throughout England and Scotland. Then, again, they also admitted that only a very small proportion of the forms were completed and returned, and thus even out of that small number which were sent out very few were actually filled up. Therefore such evidence as they had was based upon something infinitesimal—not I per cent. of the farmers of the country—and yet upon that evidence they based this important return. It shows what little value and attention should be attached to the recommendation of the Travelling Commission.
I would like to point out also that a very large number of farmers were entirely unaware that there were any sittings to be held by the Commissioners on the question of costing. As far as I understand, the only references were made in the local papers, and not in all of these, that the

201
Commission was sitting at Exeter, and as far as I am aware in Somerset very few farmers indeed were aware that any Commission was sitting to inquire into the cost of the production of milk. Then, again, there is another question in this interim Report, The Report does not show what questions the farmers were required to answer or on what basis they were to furnish their Returns of Cost. That is a very important and very germane matter for consideration, because it would depend a good deal upon whether the farmers quite understood when giving their costs, that they were to include their own labour or that of their wives or daughters and sons. That would make a very large difference in the West of England, where there are small farms and a very small amount of paid labour, as compared with the large farms and the large amount of paid labour in the Eastern counties. I would like to know whether it was clear to the farmers that they had a right to bring those matters into consideration.
It does not seem to me that there is any reason to suppose that the Commission at all went into the question of rents being very much higher, and also agricultural rates, and of course Income Tax, in these four counties, as compared with the East of England, because we are told by the Commission that these four counties were penalised because they had more favourable conditions—better climate and better land for dairying purposes. If that is true, and it may be to a certain extent, on the other hand it is undoubtedly the case that where the land is better rents also are higher. Therefore you have to take that fact into consideration in fixing the cost price in these matters. Then it has been said in this Report, and I think in defence of the Ministry of Food, that in these Western counties before the war the price we received for milk was a great deal lower than in other parts of the country. That is not my experience, for at one time I sold a very large quantity of milk, and the only difference in price was when I had to pay a larger amount for carriage owing to the greater distance which the milk was sent. I did not get, less for milk sent to the City of Bristol than for milk sent out of the county. At the present moment the farmer sending his milk there will be penalised 2d. per gallon.
As regards the question of prices, which the Travelling Commission think was
202
important, I should like to quote words spoken upon this question as to whether the West of England received much lower prices before the war than other parts of England. Mr. Butler, Chairman of the United Dairies Limited, at the annual meeting of that great company, said, according to The Times report, that prior to the war in 1911 they paid Dorset producers one-tenth of a penny per gallon more than they did producers in other parts of the country. In Dorset they actually paid more not less. In Somerset they paid producers only one-fifth of a penny less per gallon, and in Devonshire only two-fifths of a penny less. As regards the county of Cornwall he said that they had no figures. I think that may fairly be said to dispose of the argument of the Travelling Commission that it had been the general custom for the four Western county producers to receive a great deal less for their milk—say 2d. per gallon—than the rest, of the country. I am aware that to a large extent they base their argument for penalisation on their belief that there are climatic conditions which affect these four counties. In paragraph 12 they say—
"As a result of our investigations in different parts of the country we are convinced of the advisability of varying the prices paid to producers for milk in different districts. We consider that milk can be produced more cheaply in the counties of Cornwall, Devonshire, Somersetshire, lend Dorset than in the remaining parts of Great Britain. This is due chiefly to climatic conditions."
In regard to climatic conditions they go on to say that the reason is that in the West of England we have hardly ever suffered from a drought. But, my Lords, this year we have had one of the most severe droughts known in the West of England, and it is not the first one we have had by a long way.
The fact is that we suffer just as much in the West of England from drought as they do in other parts of the country, and the drought we have experienced this year has been very severe indeed. The curious thing is that when there was a break in the drought the break that we had was very little indeed in comparison with that experienced in other parts. In Somerset-shire we had no rain as a matter of fact in Ascot week when there was in London and Essex quite a quantity of rain. This shows that we certainly are not favoured as regards rainfall in comparison with

203
other places, and it shows how impossible it is for these four Commissioners to rush through the country travelling by night and say that in the West of England we never get any droughts at all. On the contrary, in the West of England we suffer just as much from drought as anywhere else. There is no doubt we have more rain, but we get it in the winter when we do not want it, and when it is no good at all.
As regards hay, we have suffered very much indeed, and it would be no exaggeration to say that of the permanent pasture of hay crop we shall not have much more than half a ton per acre. That will mean difficulty of feeding in the winter, and will mean increased cost of feeding. Furthermore, as we are aware, the Government have commandeered the whole of our old hay for this year, to take effect in September. The Commissioners go on to say that it is quite easy for farmers to turn out their cattle on April 1, and never to take them in until November, and that they practically require no feeding stuff at all. A statement of that kind simply condemns the Travelling Commission. I speak without fear of contradiction in the presence of West countrymen when I say that it is perfectly impossible to turn out your cows in April and give them nothing at all and leave them out until November to subsist en grass. If we did that, we should reduce our milk supply considerably. This only shows on what a ridiculous basis the Report of this Commission has been made.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I ask the noble Lord from where he is quoting?
LORD STRACHIE: I am quoting from the last issue of the Report of the Ministry of Food, Command Paper No. 205. I will now quote from paragraph 16, which says—
"We would suggest that in eases where milk is exported from the lower-price to the higher-price areas, the difference in price should be received by the Ministry of Food and devoted to administrative charges."
Why should these four counties have to pay the cost of the administration expenses of the Ministry of Food? It seems to me a rather curious state of things that the Ministry of Food should be allowed to increase their expenses, and to be able to
204
make it good in this way. Of course, their expenses will be increased by the mere fact of their having to issue these licences, and having to cause these deductions to be made. They have had to increase the number of officials. That is a matter that has often been complained of. The present mushroom Ministries are always increasing their officials, and never trying to cut down expenses, but rather are increasing them, though I suppose the Treasury has kicked at last, and not too soon. Now the Ministry of Food have hit upon a happy plan of this sort, that they will penalise these particular milk producers, and by that means make them pay the extra expenditure at the Ministry by making the deductions which I have indicated.
I have also seen it stated in the news-papers that Scotland is going to be treated in exactly the same way. There is a condition to be made throughout. England and Scotland regarding a charge of 4d. per gallon to be made owing to the drought. I see that a similar order for penalisation as that introduced in England is to be made for Scotland, and that the Scottish producers who export milk out of Scotland will be obliged to pay 4d. to the Ministry of Food. The Ministry of Food, therefore, is going to get a large sum of money indeed, if they are going to get 4d. en every gallon exported from Scotland. And this, may-I remind your Lordships, applies to every form of milk exported. It applies to articles manufactured out of milk.
I would now like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 17 of the Commissioners' Report, which perhaps is the most important paragraph of all. They say—
"We consider that for the successful working of any scheme of differential prices it is necessary that the Government should control the wholesale milk trade."
I think that is showing what is really at the bottom of this. We know that though agriculturists throughout the length and breadth of the country have condemned these proposals of control of the wholesale milk trade the Ministry of Food have not abandoned the proposal, and are very anxious to seize the whole of that trade. If they are able to get this large sum of money from the English Western counties and also from Scotland they will be in a position to say, "We can take control of the wholesale milk trade of this country without coming upon the Treasury or

205
costing the country anything." That, to my mind, would be a very unfortunate way of nationalising the milk trade which the Ministry apparently are anxious to bring about.
There is no doubt whatever of the object of the Ministry of Food in the paragraph I have quoted and also in this scheme of penalisation. It is to get hold of the milk trade of this country, and also, incidentally, to keep the Ministry of Food from being abolished, which so many of us desire. It seems to me that that is what really is at the bottom of it all. I should like also to ask the House whether it is not very doubtful on general principles—I am not speaking now for the four Western counties—to allow Government Departments to set up a discrimination between a producer in one part of the country and a producer in another part of the country. If you once set up that vicious system you might just as well say that you will do it with coal as with milk. Heaven knows what is to happen after the Report of this Coal Commission which we all know was not exactly an impartial Commission, and not a Commission most of us, I believe, would like to set up. In our Somerset coalfields coal is most expensive to produce, and what would be said if it were proposed to sell it at a certain price, and that in order that this might be done the coalowners of Durham were to be required to pay into a fund to be used for the benefit of the Somerset coalowners or Somerset miners. When you once begin the question of differentiation you cannot say where it will end. You might have the same thing as regards meat or wheat, because it is much less expensive to produce wheat in East Anglia than to produce it in Wales, or in the extreme West of England. Once you begin this system, where is it going to stop?
All I am asking your Lordships for to-day—and I hope you will be inclined to grant it—is to give the West of England the opportunity of going before an impartial tribunal, in order to put their case and to have a proper investigation as to whether it is right that they should receive 2d. a gallon less for their milk than the other parts of England receive. By doing so I think you will allay a great deal of discontent. Within these four counties the feeling on this matter is intense, and if it had not been that the leaders of agricultural opinion there had been very firm there
206
would have been a strike of the whole of the milk producers of that district. I am not surprised that it was rather difficult to prevent such a strike when we have seen, for instance, in the case of the miners or the railway men, that the Government were willing to give in to the threat of a strike at once. I am glad that the milk producers of these four counties desisted from their intention, and were content to come to your Lordships' House and to ask for this Inquiry.
It is very doubtful really whether this Order is a legal one. The opinion of one of the most eminent counsel in the whole country, who used to sit in another place, and the value of whose opinion would, I am sure, be recognised by the noble Lord on the Woolsack, was that this Order was ultra vires. We do not want to take legal proceedings to upset it and we certainly will not have a strike; but we do ask your Lordships to let us have a fair and impartial tribunal to consider this question more closely, and to pronounce whether we have been treated fairly or not.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report as soon as possible on the discrimination made by the Ministry of Food between the price of milk fixed for producers in Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset, and the rest of England, whereby such producers lose 2d. a gallon on their milk.—(Lord Strachie.).
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords,. I am afraid I am hardly prepared to argue the whole case in reply to Lord Strachie. His Notice merely refers to a Select Committee, and I had no idea that he was going to review the whole subject, which is a complicated one and has already been frequently discussed. But there are one or two points to which I desire to reply at once. Throughout his speech, Lord Strachie has assumed that this was a packed Inquiry. Three or four times he has said, "Let us have a fair and impartial Inquiry and let evidence be taken." I deprecate these attacks upon the good faith of this Commission, and I really think I can show the noble Lord that his criticism is unfounded.
The Commission which settled this differentiation in price was set up by the Ministry of Food. The Chairman was Mr. Fisher, who is Agricultural Adviser to the Ministry of Food, but, as he is an officer of

207
the Ministry of Food, I do not include him among the persons who, as I am going to state, are as impartial from their position as any member of your Lordships' House could be. Out of twelve members of this Travelling Commission no fewer than seven persons had nothing to do with the Ministry of Food and were directly and officially connected in one form or another with agriculture. There was a representative of the English Board of Agriculture, and a representative of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. There was a member of the Institute of Research into Agricultural Economics—Mr. Orwin, a very well-known man; then there was a representative of the West of Scotland Agricultural College, and there were three gentlemen who were members of the Agricultural Advisory Council. Thus, out of twelve persons who made this recommendation seven were wholly independent, and by their affinities and their position you may say, would prima facie have opposed rather than supported this differentiation. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not repeat the view, which I consider is very unfair, that this was a packed Commission, and that it was neither fair nor impartial, and that it was not independent.
Then again, I think Lord Strachie is under a misunderstanding about the actual procedure of this Commission. He says there ought to have been evidence taken. He said that people in Exeter, for instance, did not know that this Inquiry was taking place. All I can tell him is that the Commission spent three days at Exeter.
LORD STRACHIE: I did not say they did not know the Commission had been set up. There was only a notice put in the paper that the Commission was sitting at Exeter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In point of fact, ample information on the point was available in Exeter. No fewer than fifty-two witnesses gave evidence during these three days at Exeter. So I think it must be considered that, at any rate, the fair representative opinion of that county was laid before the Commission. The Commission in all heard no fewer than 328 witnesses. They travelled pretty well all over the country, and they took very great pains to arrive at a satisfactory decision.
208
If your Lordships desire to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into this subject I shall not, of course, oppose your wishes. But I would most respectfully point out that, this Inquiry has been conducted by very highly skilled persons, by people who represent all the Boards of Agriculture; they have travelled all over the country, heard hundreds of witnesses, examined hundreds of books. If your. Lordships desire to appoint a Select Committee, the work cannot be done in a Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster. If this Report is to be revised it will have to be revised on the spot; it will have to be revised in the centres all over England and Scotland where these people went, and I am really not sure, when this document is carefully studied—I should say that a further document is going to be presented—whether it will be considered worth while to have a large number of your Lordships devoting your attention to revising this document.
However, it is a matter which your Lordships will settle for yourselves. But, in any case, should your Lordships decide to have a Select Committee, I hope you will not do it on the ground that the Inquiry which has already been held has been anything except fair and impartial.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure the House will feel that the noble Earl opposite has endeavoured to meet my noble friend in the most reasonable spirit possible. He himself evidently does not think that any further Inquiry is necessary. He has pointed out that the Inquiry which has already taken place was conducted by men of experience, and men who, by virtue of their several positions, ought not to be considered as biased in favour of the view which was ultimately taken. I am sure there is no desire to impugn either the ability or the fairness of the Commission that inquired; but the fact remains that agricultural opinion generally is disturbed at the result which was arrived at. It is, I think, a singular fact that agricultural bodies representing the whole of England, and, so far as their own interests are concerned rather likely to be influenced in the opposite direction, should with not absolute but with practical unanimity have expressed dissatisfaction at the result which was achieved. I happen to be an official of the Central Chamber, and there were representatives there from all parts of the country who expressed the view that some

209
further inquiry into this particular separation of interests ought to be conducted.
I do not absolutely follow the argument of the noble Earl that if a select Committee of your Lordships were appointed to inquire into this matter it would have to become a roving Committee and examine not only the Western counties concerned, but also, for the purposes of comparison I will assume, all other districts in England. I should have supposed that the course the Select Committee would adopt would be the usual one of inviting a certain number of representative witnesses, who would be prepared to state the facts regarding the different districts, and that the Committee would be able to form a judicial opinion upon the facts thus ascertained. It was no doubt convenient for the purposes of the previous inquiry to have a roving Commission, but it is not absolutely necessary, for a purpose of this kind, either to inspect the particular herds of cattle whose yield of milk is involved, or the particular pastures on which they feed, or the particular arable land upon which forage crops may be grown for their consumption.
The facts, I should have supposed, could be quite well ascertained by a selection of picked evidence which need not be very great in volume, and upon which a carefully selected Committee of your Lordships ought to be able to form an opinion. That, after all, is the plan upon which the Board of Agriculture, for instance, has to form most of its judgments; it is obviously impossible for my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture to visit and personally to inspect all the places concerning which he has to make some decision. I think, therefore, that the noble Earl has somewhat exaggerated the need for personal inspection; and opinion on the subject being, as it undoubtedly is, dissatisfied, I myself think that your Lordships would do well to agree to the Motion of my noble friend.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I hope that Lord Strachie will press his Motion asking your Lordships to appoint a Select Committee. I have, no interest whatever in the milk industry, and no interest nearer to the Western counties than Northumberland. It is not on the merits of this particular twopence that I would ask your Lordships to press for the appointment of a committee. It seems to me that it is absolutely wrong in principle that the
210
Government; should be able to levy a tax upon certain individual; at the discretion of a Department and for the benefit of the whole community. I shall certainly vote for this Motion if it is pressed to a Division because, as I understand the matter, it will enable that committee to inquire into the principle which governs the matter as well as into the actual twopence; and I think it is a principle that ought to be inquired into and condemned.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, may I be permitted to say a word in support of the appeal which has been made to the noble Earl?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have agreed. If Lord Strachie and Lord Crewe desire a Committee, I will support it.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am sorry to say I had not heard that. Then I will say a word in support of the views which have been expressed by the noble Lords who wish the committee to be appointed. It is practically a new departure on the part of the Ministry of Food to make a distinction between different classes of arable produce in the various parts of the country and apportioning prices accordingly.
I ask myself this question, Where is this to end? What happened when the Ministry of Food first began to fix prices? There never was such a lamentable failure. I remember pointing out in this House—when I moved a vote which was practically a vote of censure on the then Food Controller, the late Lord Rhondda—that on every occasion when he had fixed prices there was an immediate diminution in the production of the article concerned. The first thing was milk, the next thing was cheese, and the next thing was butter. I am sure your Lordships will remember that each of these articles became so scarce that it was hardly possible to obtain it. I gave several instances which had occurred within my own knowledge in different parts of the country where even labouring people were bitterly complaining that in days past—before we underwent the misfortune of having a Ministry of Food controlling prices—even when food, was scarce and dear they could always get cheese; but in village after village in the different counties I visited there was a complaint that it was impossible to find anything of the kind. If this principle is to be adopted now, if I had my way I

211
would throw out the Bill altogether; but that is not what is proposed.
The soils are different in all parts of the country; some require a great deal of water, others require very little. Take the Fen land which will grow magnificent crops of wheat and go through a great drought with benefit rather than otherwise. But take other lands which, for instance, grow barley. I can cite the finest barley-growing county in the world—namely, what is known as the Lincolnshire heath. There barley is grown that has never been equalled when the seasons are favourable. Everyone knows, however, that the climate of England is one of the most capricious in the world. Is it to be the principle in the future that whenever the seasons vary—when there is drought in one place or too much rain in another—the prices of agricultural produce in those particular districts are to be varied and fixed accordingly by the Ministry of Food? That is really what the proposals which are before us this afternoon mean. I frankly own that from the beginning to the end the whole of this principle of fixing prices is utterly wrong, and I support with the greatest satisfaction the suggestion of my noble friend. I only wish it went a great deal further.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I have heard with some relief the announcement on the part of the noble Earl of the willingness of the Government to allow some sort of Committee to be set up to inquire further into this question. I may state at once that I say so, not because I wish to disparage in any way the qualifications, or the capacity or impartiality of the Committee which has already reported. All the gentlemen upon it are well known to myself, and I believe them to have carried out their very difficult task to the best of their ability. But why I do think it is desirable that some further Committee should investigate this matter is because we are faced this winter with a serious prospect of a milk famine, and in view of the serious shortage of concentrated feeding stuffs and the serious effect on milk production of the recent drought, and the shortage of hay and roots, it is most important that you should not allow a large number of farmers in the South-West of England to remain in a dissatisfied and disgruntled condition and taking steps, as some are, either to dispose of their herds of cattle or substantially to reduce them. There is another factor which
212
I think the noble Earl should have taken into account. That is that unfortunately this prolonged drought has nowhere been more serious or more prolonged than in those very counties which are handicapped by the differentiation of price.
On general grounds, may I say that this question presents a very good indication of the danger of prolonging Government control beyond the period when it is absolutely essential? It is far more difficult to exercise Government control without a sense of dissatisfaction now that we have reached the Peace period, than it was while the war was in progress. As regards this particular milk question I for my part have to admit that in certain parts of the South-West of England the price of milk, prior to the war, was, as a rule, lower than in many parts of the Midlands and North. But surely it is wholly impossible, even assuming that to have been the case, to suggest the county boundary as a proper boundary in any differentiation of price. May I tell your Lordships that I look out from my home—I, fortunately, live in Gloucestershire—upon other land which supplies the Bristol market, rich land in the Berkeley Vale, which sends milk to the same market that is served by my Somerset friends in whom Lord Strachie is interested. Their land is, if anything, far better than most land in Somersetshire, and they are able to obtain twopence per gallon more in the same market.
When my noble friend Lord Devonport was Food Controller I had the privilege to serve as Chairman of his Dairy Farmers' Committee, and we investigated this very problem at considerable length. We came to the conclusion that the only possible way to differentiate in price, if you must differentiate, was to take the pre-war level of price and add a constant increase of price all over the country to the pre-war price. By that means you are able, at any rate, to avoid a sense of grievance on account of differentiation, because you are able to plead that, under pre-war conditions, there was a difference in price and that you have simply added an increase which is the same all over the country. I venture to suggest that when this matter is again examined it may be worth while to consider the principle which was adopted at that time and which caused very little, if any, dissatisfaction.
LORD ST. LEVAN: My Lords, I wish to support what has been said by the noble

213
Lord who has just spoken about the danger of a reduction in the production of milk in the South Western counties. Not only is that reduction unfortunate in itself, but I should like to point out that it is a reduction in the very best kind of milk in the country—the milk produced in the South West of England—owing to the Channel Island breeds and the fact that the grass grown there is of high quality. I believe it would be most unfortunate in the interests of the country if anything took place to curtail production. I know there is a danger of such curtailment on account of this differentiation of price. Farmers have got a good deal to contend with besides the price of food and the shortness of hay that has occurred owing to the drought. There is also a difference in the labour question now. When farm labour stops work on Saturday afternoon until Monday morning there is a good deal of extra work for the farmer and his family, and the result is that they find they have almost more to do than they can manage. We must not forget that they have the means of using their cattle to other advantage, because they can turn the cows into beef which will pay much better, if the price of milk is reduced from that to which they are accustomed. I am glad to hear that the noble Earl is going to grant a Commission. As Lord Crewe said just now, it will allay the great feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction and will give an opportunity to those concerned to prove their case to the satisfaction of all parties.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I presume a Committee will be appointed. I hope that an impartial Committee may be set up. I take note that every Peer who has spoken up till now has condemned what the Government have already done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR-CAR HEAD-LIGHTS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 11 under which the head-lights of motorcars are now regulated; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Law Officers have advised that these exceptional war powers can be legally used, not for the Defence of the Realm, but in the interests of public safety as stated by Lord
214
Sandhurst on 24th June, and, if not, whether the Order will be at once withdrawn.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put down a Question a short time ago in regard to Regulation No. 11 under the Defence of the Realm Act, relating to the head-lights of motor-cars. I put it down as a starred Question because. I desired merely to ask one simple point—Was this regarded as being intra vires or ultra vires of the Defence of the Realm Act? The noble Lord, Lord. Sandhurst, in the reply he was instructed to make dealt with it, and said it was desirable in the interests of public safety. I was not in a position on that occasion to argue that point and I do not propose to argue it to-day. I propose only to say this—that if it were desirable by the proper Tribunal, which is the Local Government Board, to make au alteration in the Use and Construction of Motor Cars Order,. it is open to them to do it after the ordinary and proper inquiry and consultation with the Royal Automobile Club and other bodies which are able to speak with authority as to what is desirable and practicable.
My Question does not really relate to motor-ears, as such, at all. It may be regarded to some extent as a continuation of the debate that we have just had. It relates to the abuse by Government Departments of these exceptional powers of making Rules and Regulations which were given to them under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the using of them for purely civilian administrative purposes to-save themselves trouble. In this case there is the less excuse because, as I have pointed out, there exists a Department specially charged with this duty which can quite properly make Regulations. I therefore felt bound to put the Question down again, to ask the Government whether the Law Officers have advised that these exceptional powers can be legally used, not for the Defence of the Realm, but in the interests of public safety, which was-given by the noble Lord himself as the reason for making the Regulation. I do not admit that it is necessary or desirable in the interests of public safety—no accidents have occurred. It was not found, so before the war, and it is not so now. But that is not really the point.
The point is that you are using an Act for the Defence of the Realm, and a Regulation primarily made under that Act to, defend us from the attacks of Zeppelins, in

215
order to regulate a purely domestic matter. It is desirable that the powers of a Department should be called attention to and curtailed when they are acting in this illegal manner. I do not think it ought to be necessary to take a Department into Court and get a verdict that a Regulation is ultra vires when it is as plain on the face of it as it is on this occasion. I shall be anxious to hear whether the Law Officers have been consulted, and, if so, what opinion they have given. If the noble Earl quotes their opinion I would ask him to quote their ipsissima verba If he does not, I shall have to call attention to the matter again.
I cannot see why motorists who are oppressed with illegal Regulations should be bound to take them to the High Court in order to get a judgment on the matter when the Law Officers are available to advise the Crown as to whether the matter is in order or not. We are now at peace; it is no longer even a question of the Armistice. So far as our principal opponent is concerned we are actually and technically at peace, and these regulations and powers made for the purposes of war, I venture to say, must not and should not be used by a Department for purposes which have nothing whatever to do with the Defence of the Realm, or the reason for which the powers were put into their hands.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, as the noble Earl has reminded us, he put an almost similar inquiry about a fortnight ago, and from the fact that he feels compelled to repeat it I must, of course, infer that he was not wholly satisfied with the answer he then received. In fact, he has told us so quite plainly. I observe that in asking the Question he says it has nothing to do with motor-cars, but as the head, lights on motor-cars are specifically mentioned it is somewhat difficult for me entirely to dissociate motor-cars from any reply I may give.
I am quite sure that the noble Earl does not in any way underrate the importance of endeavouring to ensure the safety of the public by any possible means—and he has said so. I gather that what he is really concerned with is whether the Government are acting strictly within their legal powers in enforcing this Order under the altered conditions in which we now find ourselves. He is, in fact, seeking to protect the Government
216
against any ill-advised action which may possibly get them into trouble. Therefore the Question very naturally divides itself into two parts. There is, first, the desirability of the Order in quest ion.
EARL RUSSELL: Not in the least. I endeavoured to make it perfectly plain that I ask no question as to the desirability of the Order.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: I know that the noble Earl did not raise that point. His question was as to the legality of the Order. At the same time I may, perhaps, be permitted to say a few words as to the desirability, because I have to try and persuade the noble Earl—I do not know whether I shall succeed—that the Order is both desirable in existing circumstances, and also, and especially, that it is legal to enforce it. As to the desirability of the Order, I would refer the noble Earl to the latter part of the reply to the Question asked by him on June 24 last. The noble Earl said in his speech that lie did not admit that it was in any way an answer, if I understood him aright, to say that it was for the safety of the public that head-lights should be controlled. He said that he had never heard of any accidents arising from conspicuous head-lights, and he saw no reason in the interests of the public why any control should be exercised over the lights carried on motor-cars.
There will be, I think, general agreement that some measures are necessary to control the power of the lights which may be used on motor-cars. Not only is this view held by non-motorists, but it has been widely expressed in the motoring Press. Before the war many lamps were in use which were not only a nuisance but a danger to drivers of approaching vehicles and other users of the roads, and with the further developments which may be anticipated in the manufacture of electric lamp bulbs the need for some regulation of the power that may be used will become even more necessary than it was before the war. As the noble Earl himself mentioned, the present Order has nothing to do with air raids. The Order which was in force before the Armistice was revoked immediately on the cessation of hostilities. The present Order is intended merely as an interim measure, to retain some control over the use of headlights of dangerous brilliancy pending further measures on a permanent basis.

217
The problem is not a simple one. What is required is a device which will suppress the dazzling quality of the beams from a powerful lamp while allowing sufficient light for all reasonable requirements even on a bad road. Several devices have been submitted to the Home Office in the last few months, but none of them have satisfactorily met the requirements indicated. As the noble Earl was informed on June 24, the matter is one which it is hoped will eventually come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Ways and Communications, who will no doubt put it on a permanent bass. In the interval it would, in the opinion of the Government, be undesirable and dangerous to remove or further to relax the restrictions which at present exist and have been found to be in the general interest.
As to the legality of the Regulation, I would remind the noble Earl that under Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, His Majesty in Council is empowered to issue regulations for securing the public safety as well as the defence of the Realm. Regulation No. 11, under which the Lights (Vehicles) Order is made, was drawn up with the advice of the Parliamentary counsel, and is still in force. The matter is clearly one of public safety, and there can be no reasonable doubt that the Order is within the scope of the Regulation under which it is made. The Order has not been referred to the Law Officers. There appears to be no doubt that it is intra vires, and it would, of course, be very difficult to consult the Law Officers on every Order made by a Government Department. If any one doubts the legality of the Order it is, of course, always open to him to test the question in the Courts, which is an even higher authority than the Law Officers. I need, perhaps, hardly assure the noble Earl that the Order is not enforced from any desire to maintain arbitrary or irksome official control a day longer than is absolutely necessary, but solely because the Regulation in question is honestly believed to be in the best interests of public safety.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I certainly do not disagree with what has just been said as to the desirability of placing some restriction and limitation on the head-lights of motor-cars. Any one who has used the roads in any capacity must recognise that their at present unrestricted use is not merely an inconvenience
218
but a great danger to the travelling public. But that does not cover the real point of this Question. The real question is, not whether it is for the public convenience that this restriction should be in force, but, is it within the public law that it should be used? It seems to me a very serious thing indeed if a Government Department, with the best intentions in the world, are to say, "Any one can realise that some protective measure is required in this direction or that, and we therefore propose to issue an Order in Council (which is protected by the Defence of the Realm Act) and punish, or attempt to punish, any person who disobeys its provisions." If any one thinks for a moment what the Defence of the Realm Act meant, and what the Orders in Council were intended to cover, they cannot possibly have believed it to have contemplated an Order to regulate in times of peace the use of motor traffic on the roads. What I feel very strongly is this, that even if the Parliamentary draftsman has advised the Department that such an Order can be made, it is in fact an abuse of the process of the Defence of the Realm Act to issue it at the present time. We ought to be very careful that whatever rights and liberties we enjoy shall be curtailed and controlled only by Acts of Parliament passed in the proper way; and an Order in Council issued now under the Defence of the Realm Act, for special purposes, is not in my humble view a proper mode of legislating.
EARL RUSSELL: I must say, my Lords, that I regard the answer of the noble Earl as so unsatisfactory that I shall be compelled to recur to the subject, and I press him to take the opinion of the Law Officers. I would point out to him, in reply to an observation which he made, that this is a specially challenged Regulation, and I must recur to the subject in order that we may have it settled, once and for all, whether we are to continue to-day to live under exceptional Regulations.

COPYRIGHT PROTECTION.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether any steps will be taken to ensure that American authors, and such British authors as have first published works in the United States of America since 1916, shall not be deprived of copyright protection belonging to them

219
under the subsisting Treaty or Agreement of 1912 by reason of the terms and results of the Embargo Act of 1916, which have prevented simultaneous publication; and whether provision can be made to prevent piracy of the works of these authors.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, only a few words will be necessary to explain the import of this Question on the subject of copyright between us and the United States. In 1916 books imported from the United States unfortunately had become a luxury in this country. Their importation was forbidden, and the effect of forbidding them was to interfere with the smooth working of the Copyright Act of 1912, and also with the Treaty or agreement or arrangement of reciprocity between this country and the United States of America. That arrangement or agreement started with a Despatch from Lord Salisbury as long ago as 1891, and I have understood that it was confirmed, after the Copyright Act was passed, in 1912. It was interfered with by us in the manner I have intimated. It has not been interfered with in the United States. In fact, I am given to understand that in the United States, in both Houses, Bills have been introduced which would give assistance to British authors who have published here and who have had their publications in the United States interfered with by the effects of the war.
I am anxious to know whether steps have been taken here, so as to give American authors who have published in the United States and who have been prevented from having copyright here, and British authors who have been forced by the difficulties of manufacture and publication here to resort to publication in the United States, to obtain their copyright here. It is partly a question of reciprocity and partly also a question of piracy. Anybody who was at the International Conference at Berlin in 1908 will know what an important question piracy was. Cribbing may be a most serious thing to a young author whose works are not protected, and also to an author who published a series of works. I shall be glad to know whether steps have been taken, or can be taken, to deal in the way of reciprocity with the United States of America, and also to prevent piracy being carried to undue lengths.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, who is an expert in this matter, and who has raised a
220
question which I am sure we are all very glad to have raised, may I say that it was not quite clear at first sight what was referred to as the Treaty of Agreement of 1912.
LORD ASKWITH: It refers to the confirmation, as I understood it, which occurred in 1912 of Lord Salisbury's Despatch of 1891.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: Under the Copyright Act, which was passed in 1911, works first published in the United States of America can obtain Copyright in this country by simultaneous publication within the parts of His Majesty's Dominion to which the Act extends; that is to say, publication must be made here not later than fourteen days after the publication in the United States of America, and copies could be imported in bulk for such purposes. Under the Proclamation of February 23, 1917, which is presumably the "Embargo Act of 1916" referred to by the noble Lord in the Question, importation of books was prohibited except in single copies through the post or under special license of the Board of Trade. But it was still possible to import copies for the purpose of simultaneous publication in Newfoundland or some other part of His Majesty's Dominions, other than Canada, in promixity to the United States. Further, it was possible to print an edition in this country for the purpose of simultaneous publication here. The prohibition of importation has now been withdrawn, and there is therefore no difficulty now in importing copies in bulk. Negotiations have been proceeding for some time with the United States Government with a view to conferring copyright upon all works first published in one of the two countries since the outbreak of war, which have by reason of war conditions, such as loss of mails, etc., failed to comply with the conditions of the law of the other country and consequently forfeited copyright there, and it is hoped that these negotiations will have a successful issue.
His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the question raised by Lord Askwith, and to the necessity of preventing any further continuance of piracy of works published during the war in either of the two countries. The negotiations with the United States Government to this end will be continued, and it is hoped may have a successful end. If

221
the powers conferred upon His Majesty's Government by existing legislation are found to be insufficient the question of introducing additional legislation will receive careful attention. May I add that I shall be glad to confer privately with the noble Lord, if he desires further information, or to reply later to another Question, if he so prefers. I can at present add nothing to what I have said, which I trust he will regard as satisfactory.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY-ELECTIONS.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government for a Return of the number of by-elections held during the year 1913 for county councils, borough councils, and district councils (urban and rural.), showing how many of them were contested.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, the Minister of Health has no particulars as to the number of elections which occurred in the year 1913 to fill casual vacancies on county councils, borough councils, or urban or rural district councils, and it would be necessary for applications to be made to the clerk of the various local authorities to provide a Return of such elections. The total number of the local authorities is over 1,800, and it. would take some considerable time to complete the return. The Minister of Health is willing to arrange for a Return of the elections which occurred in the cases of all the local authorities in selected geographical counties in England and Wales, if the information in, these cases would be sufficient for the purposes of the noble Earl. He suggests that the information might be obtained for a dozen counties, and if this suggestion is approved he is willing to supply the noble Earl with a form of Motion for the Return.
EARL GREY: I thank the noble Viscount, and am very glad to accept his suggestion.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
TER EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I think the case for an active afforestation policy in this country is generally conceded. During the last twenty-five years numerous inquiries have been held into the subject,
222
not to discuss the necessity, but to discuss the best methods to adopt. Little or nothing has been achieved, and the position in this country gives grave cause for apprehension. Many of your Lordships are aware that only one other country in Europe is so sparsely wooded as Great Britain. Only 4 per cent. of our area is under timber, whereas in Belgium 17 per cent. is wooded, in France 18 per cent., in Germany 25 per cent. Portugal alone has a smaller area than ourselves. Moreover, the woods we possess yield only about one-third per acre of that harvested in countries where sylvicultural science is developed, so that in contrast with other countries we have insignificant areas under forest.
To begin with, we have enormous areas suitable for planting, and we have an abnormal high percentage of woodlands which urgently demand reproduction. Even so, the depletion of our woodlands has been going on apace. Before the war Ireland had a net loss of something like 1,000 acres a year, and my impression is that the same process was going on in Scotland, and I think in England as well. Then came the war. It found us unprepared. There was an immediate short age of timber. Our home market became disorganised. We had no labour timber policy, and at one time the actual continuance of coal-mining was gravely threatened owing to the absence of pit props. A great tonnage effort was successfully made. But timber is almost the most bulky of cargoes, and we paid a very heavy bill in our mercantile marine for the timber we had to import. We added to our debt, we burdened our exchange, and in the first two years of the war, 1915 and 1916, the increased price that we had to pay for the timber compared with the prices of the two previous years amounted to £37,000,000. That is what we paid extra to foreign Producers during the first two years of the war. I have no figures for the years 1917 and 1918, but prices continued fabulous.
The Bill that I present to your Lordships asks for £3,500,000 to be spent during the next ten years to begin to repair out losses and to provide for the future. I desire briefly to describe the scheme in the Bill. It is based, broadly speaking, upon the Report of the Forestry Sub-Committee presided over by Mr. Francis Acland. It was a strong and experienced body of men, representative of the three

223
Boards of Agriculture—Scotland, Ireland, and England—the Development Commission, the Labour Party, and including persons very well acquainted with finance, and other members with large technical experience of sylviculture. I remind your Lordships that this Report was unanimous. All the public Departments concerned signed it, with the exception of one very proper reservation which was made by the representative of the Treasury—a proper and, I suppose, an inevitable reservation. It is a very remarkable document. Clause 1 of the Bill constitutes a small Central Authority—a Forestry Commission—consisting of seven members, of whom one shall be Chairman to be appointed by His Majesty, and of whom three may be salaried. Clause 2 gives them power to employ staff, to sue and be sued, to become a Government Department in fact. Clause 3 recites their powers and their duties. Generally, they are to promote and develop forestry and the production of timber; specifically they take over the powers and duties of the Boards of Agriculture, with the right to devolve back if necessary any function that may be agreed between themselves and one or other of the Boards of Agriculture.
The Commissioners are invested with the power (in Clause 3) to take land by lease or by purchase, to sell or exchange land, to buy or sell standing timber, to make advances by way of loan or by way of grant with a view to promote re-planting. They can undertake the management and supervision of woodlands, promote woodland industries, collect and compare statistics, make inquiries, experiments, and research. Under Clause 4 they are invested with power to prevent damage by vermin. Under Clause 7 they receive the power compulsorily to acquire land, and under Clause 9 power of entry in respect of lands for the purposes of survey, and for investigating vermin or forest pests. These powers are certainly comprehensive. Under Clause 5 three assistant Commissioners will be appointed, one for England and Wales, one for Ireland, and one for Scotland. Under Clause 6 four Consultative Committees are set up, one for England, one for Scotland, one for Wales and one for Ireland.
The organisation, therefore, will be briefly as follows. At the head will be the Forestry Commission. Below the Forestry Commission come the three Assistant Commissioners. They will have divisional
224
officers. The divisional officers in charge of a large tract of country will have a district officer in charge of a smaller area, who in turn will be responsible for the forester, the foreman, the woodman, and so forth. It sounds perhaps formidable at first sight, but I have studied the matter with some care, and I am sure that the organisation proposed is not excessive, when you take into account the work that has to be done. And with a centralised authority, as is proposed under this Bill, I am confident that there may actually be an economy in staff.
Mr. Acland's Committee estimated that the plantable area in the United Kingdom was between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 acres, which I think is a conservative figure. The broad outline of the planting policy proposed is set forth on page 39 of the Report. The general idea is that during the first eighty years 1,750,000 acres shall be afforested, and during the first forty years 1,180,000 acres. The scheme of this Bill extends over ten years only, and it is hoped that during the first ten years afforestation may be achieved as follows:—150,000 acres by direct State action; 25,000 acres by proceed sharing; 25,000 acres by local authorities and private individuals; and 50,000 acres of existing woodland or cleared woodland replanted—total 250,000 acres.
I am bound to admit that the scheme was made when prices were considerably lower than they are now, and either the money must be increased or the scheme must be curtailed. Clause 8 guarantees finance for ten years' time. I notice that Lord Haldane complained that Clause 8 places a very large expenditure of public money outside the supervision of Parliament. All I can say is that that is not the desire or the intention of those responsible for the Bill. Clause 8 says that during the next ten years £3,500,000 shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund into the Forestry Fund, but it also says that year by year annual Estimates have to be presented to Parliament for the money to be spent during the financial twelve months. It also states that the Commissioners have to present their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor-General every year, and finally, that the Treasury has to regulate the whole method of handling their finance. If more control is wanted I shall be very glad to give sympathetic attention to any amendment to

225
that effect. The one essential thing to my mind is that some guarantee of continuity should be given, otherwise it is almost hopeless, as so many of your Lordships know, to enter upon any serious planting policy.
Now I wish to say a word about the centralised control which is proposed in this Bill. It is a point which arouses interest, and in some quarters controversy. At the present moment we have four or five different authorities who control forestry, and we have several times as many policies. The first essential of sylviculture is a single and a consistent policy, and in order to acquire this in my opinion an ad hoc authority is necessary. At the present moment forestry is a subordinate and a casual adjunct of our Boards of Agriculture. It is frankly so regarded. In the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, passed by Lord Chaplin, I think (I am not sure) forestry ranks pari passu with agriculture. But for every pound and every hour devoted to forestry a thousand are devoted to agriculture. Forestry does not enjoy the position which the terms of the Statute guaranteed it thirty years ago. In Scotland it is much the same thing. In your Lordships' House Lord Pentland announced in 1911 that forestry would have a vital and integral Department. Well, it has not. And in point of practice in Scotland practically all demands for finance on behalf of forestry have had to be refused.
Again, since 1909 the Development Commission has only been able to spend 10 per cent. of its money on afforestation—that is, grants and loans taken together. And during the five years before the war I doubt very much if more than 200 acres a year were planted. I think that this is natural, and, indeed, almost inevitable. It is not the fault of the Department. They have to look to immediate settlement. The Boards of Agriculture have to look for immediate returns. They are accustomed to reckon in the short rotations of farm crops. They have to satisfy individuals who are waiting upon their doorsteps. In forestry one has to look very, much further ahead. For forestry one wants a mental telescope; for ordinary husbandry one may be content with a microscope. It is no good blaming public Departments, Boards of Agriculture, because progress in afforestation has been so distressingly slow. Where a single authority has to divide its funds between the highland and
226
the lowland you may be sure that the latter is going to win all the prizes; the valley, which has roads and railroads and canals, will always outbid the hillside. And I say, therefore, that it is inevitable that the agricultural side of the work should have obtained complete priority over the sylvicultural.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, thinks it is a mistake to have a Forestry Department, because it divorces it from small holdings, and so on. I think I may say with some knowledge of the facts that in the creation of small holdings by Boards of Agriculture and by county councils, in 98—certainly in 95—per cent. of the cases the small holdings have been established without giving one thought to the question of afforestation. I do not know whether I exaggerate, but there is a quite different side to the question. If we establish a strong Forestry Department and if it is successful in its operations, I feel confident that small holdings will be irresistibly attracted to that neighbourhood by the forest. If we establish small holdings for a thousand years they will in themselves and by themselves never establish a forest. I therefore think that this centralised authority is really essential.
The administrative advantages are very marked indeed. In the first place, for uniformity of survey a central authority is clearly necessary. Survey was first advocated by a committee in 1787. Since then a county has been done here, a hundred has been done there; systems differ, results conflict, effort is wasted. Until we get a centralised authority we shall have no business-like survey of the British Isles. That argument equally holds good about statistics; indeed, it is quite unanswerable. It is also true about research. If one takes forest entomology, for instance, it is very important that it should be directed from one central headquarters and, indeed, with the requirements of the whole of the United Kingdom in view; otherwise there is sure to be overlapping and waste. Again, in laboratory tests—for instance, the tension and resisting tests of timber. Unless the method is uniform the results are going to be illusory and, from a commercial point of view, worthless. We do not want a Scottish test of timber, or an Irish test, or a Welsh test; we want a British test; and without a centralised authority I do not see how we are going to get it.

227
From the financial point of view the great advantage of a centralised authority is that it permits a well-defined and a far-reaching policy to be laid down. It avoids the annual wrangle and struggle with the Treasury about quotas; so many hundredths for Scotland, so many hundredths for Ireland, and so on. That is a contentious system of equivalent grants which is probably more obnoxious to a forestry policy than anywhere else in the public service. I should now like to say why I think that, from the point of view of a forestry staff, a Central Department has incontrovertible advantages. You get one large staff instead of four or five little staffs. That means large and rapid promotion; and that prospect opens up a real future for the clever man. He will realise that there is no danger of stagnation for him; that he will not get into a groove, into a cul de sac, because the service will be expansive offering him good prospects and therefore encouraging a high standard of candidate. It is exactly the same with education. With a central service there will be one big strong educational service instead of three or four little ones. It is like a University instead of some isolated and detached colleges. You will not get it under detached and isolated authorities. In order to get this really powerful and really living system of education you must have a central authority. It will then allow the interchange of students. The Scottish student will have a prescriptive right to study where you please—the Alice Holt woods, or Tintern. The English student will equally have a prescriptive right to study conversion in Wales or entomology in Ireland. All will enjoy equal claims for the bursaries and for the travelling scholarships. The student will get a greater variety of training; he will have a wider experience of soil, of method, and of climate. This spells income to the forester and profit to the woodlands in his charge.
I think that the weight of opinion supporting a centralised scheme is really overwhelming. Here in England the proposal has been very well received. In Scotland every one I have been able to come across with large personal experience and knowledge of the subject agrees—including, I should like to say, the Scottish Arboricultural Society, which is the strongest body of its kind and which speaks in the name of landowners of factors, of seedsmen, of merchants, and of the working foresters
228
and woodmen of Scotland. I should like to add this about Scotland to dispel the fallacy which I cannot help thinking has been stimulated more for political than for sylvicultural reasons—namely, that Scotland is going to be badly treated or dispossessed of rights under a centralised authority. Scotland is not going to be run or ruled from England under this Bill. It will have its own officers, its own administrative staff, its own local executive, its own local advisory committees, and its divisional organisations. Speaking as one very much interested and concerned in Scottish forestry, I greatly trust that our Scottish system may be combined with that of England and with that of Ireland.
In conclusion, I wish to say a word about the Interim Forest Authority. Two or three days before the Armistice, after Mr. Acland's Committee had reported, the Government appointed what was called an Interim Forest Authority to make inquiries, to investigate, and, generally speaking, to prepare the ground for the Bill which I now present. This authority, of course, has been able to proceed only On tentative lines, to make informal and unofficial inquiries; but it is really wonderful what has been achieved during these last few months. They have devoted themselves to establishing friendly relations with bodies interested in forestry and to considering the preliminary machinery which will be necessary if forest development is sanctioned by Parliament. Conferences, therefore, have been held in London, Edinburgh and Dublin with the heads of the Departments of Agriculture, the officers of the Timber Supply Department, arboricultural and forestry societies, surveyors' and land agents' societies, the Timber Trades' Federation, and educational bodies. They have been considering the general organisation which will be required. They have been going through many hundreds of applications which have reached the Government in anticipation of a Bill being passed. They have been considering the organisation of a uniform system of land survey, both with regard to the supply of timber and with regard to the sylvicultural possibilities of land. They have examined schemes for developing woodmen's schools. They have actually purchased and have sown about £5,000 worth of forest seeds. They have been considering schemes of proceeds sharing and they have made inquiries as to whether, and how, land can be purchased or leased

229
for afforestation. They have also made arrangements in connection with a Conference, which is to be held here during the coming October, with the Overseas Trade Department on questions of imperial forestry.
The Authority is working through the Board of Agriculture in Scotland and through the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland, and it is in consultation with them constantly as to general questions of policy. By agreement with the President of the Board of Agriculture for England and Wales the Forests staff of that Department has been transferred to the Authority. It will, therefore, be seen that this Interim Forest Authority, which advocates a central scheme, is working in perfect co-operation and amity with the Departments whose work it is going to take over. It is really remarkable what has been done in these few months, and it is still more remarkable how keen the public response has been to the fact that, at last, it knows an Authority exists which is devoting its whole time and its entire energy to this question of afforestation, centralising experience and technical knowledge on this all-important subject and not distracted by other questions which have made it so difficult for existing Departments to pay adequate attention to it. A feeling of confidence and expectation has been aroused. People who have been waiting, very patiently waiting, for five and twenty years at last realise that a great opportunity is now offering itself. This Bill which I present to your Lordships gives a permanent status to the Forest Authority from which great things are expected. I earnestly invite your Lordships' support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move to leave not all words after "That" fur the purpose of inserting the following Resolution: "this House, while fully recognising the importance and urgency in the national interest of the reform of afforestation, declines to approve a measure which seeks (1) to withdraw the subject from control by the departments of Government already entrusted with it in England, Scotland, and Ireland; (2) to divorce it from the local development of agriculture and of small holdings and the social surroundings
230
they require in order to make any system of afforestation effective; and (3) to place the very large expenditure of public money contemplated outside the supervision of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to move the rejection of this Bill I wish at the very outset to make perfectly plain the grounds on which I proceed. That the matter for which it proposes to provide is urgent, no one can hold more strongly than myself. I do not think, even in the Report on which this Bill is founded, that the authors of that Report have fully realised the tremendous seriousness of the question. It is completely true, as the noble Earl has said, that in the development of our forests we have fallen far behind. At one time we were much better than we are to day. There was some stimulus given when ships were built of wood instead of steel. But of late years things became so bad that not only has he in no way exaggerated in the account he gave of the condition of things before the war, but the course of the war was almost to deplete our resources. If the war had gone on for much longer they would have been depleted. Not only was that so, but we are dependent to an extent that perhaps no other nation is upon the import of wood for our industries. Our coal, our building, fifty other industries, are dependent on large supplies of wood which ought to be produced, as far as possible, at home. But this side of things has been almost wholly neglected. Before the war steps were taken to which I will allude in a moment. I think I made it plain that I recognise, as much as any one in this House, that there is an evil which requires a remedy.
My case against the Bill is the utter inadequacy of the Government plan. This Lilliputian scheme, with its notion that by setting up a bureaucracy in London you can stimulate into life the people of Scotland, Ireland, and England and can create those communities through whom alone afforestation develops—well, I think it is a delusion which, unfortunately, has had its parallel in many other attempts of the kind which have been undertaken in the past. You cannot separate the kind of population you require for the development of afforestation from social conditions. You must combine in the lives of these people not only their occupations, but the life which they live, the amenities

231
which surround them, the encouragement to settle. If afforestation is to be undertaken on a large scale in this country, it must be undertaken in such a fashion that you will encourage people to settle down more or less in small communities in regions which will often be very remote, and there you must make sure that they find the social surroundings and the stimulus which will induce them to accept the new conditions. In other words, you cannot build up afforestation a part from social conditions. That means that you must not divorce it from agricultural considerations.
The noble Earl spoke of this Bill as a Bill upon which there was something like enthusiasm, and I was struck with this reflection as I listened to what he said—Where is the President of the Board of Agriculture, who was in the House a short time ago? Is he showing his enthusiasm for the Bill by his presence? Where was the applause of the Secretary for Scotland who was responsible for this subject when, in its earlier stage, it came before the other House? Where are the representatives of Ireland? Official Ireland has been vocal upon the subject, so that we need not ask the question. The noble Earl has every part of the United Kingdom, the official Voice, and the voice, too, of many of its best experts, against him on the matter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Oh, no. Lord Ernle will support me in the Lobby, if necessary.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I dare say he will support you in the Lobby, but I should like to hear him support you in the House. Perhaps Lord Ernle is here. I should like to see a little enthusiasm for this Bill elsewhere among other colleagues of the noble Earl. The Bill is one which proposes to take the mediæval method of recalling devolution and decentralisation as it exists to-day and substituting for it the control of England, Scotland, and Ireland in London.
THE EARL OF CRAWFOED: Oh, no.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, it is in the Bill. There is a body to be set up which is under no Minister responsible to Parliament. That is the answer about expenditure. It is a body set up independent of every other Ministry, and the only local conditions which will obtain in Scotland, Ireland, and England will be that the
232
central body will appoint a sub-commission to go down and minister to the desires of the people to whom they are sent. No wonder that the leading organs of Unionism in Scotland have been denouncing this Bill. The noble Earl, perhaps, reads the Scotsman. If he does so he will have noticed the pained articles endeavouring to say as much as they can for the Government they support but pointing out the outrage that is being done to Scotland by recalling the provisions that exist.
It is quite true that matters are in a very rudimentary and insufficient state. It is quite true that the Boards of Agriculture in England, Scotland, and Ireland have powers which are far too feeble for the task they have to discharge. It is quite true that the Development Commission has not been able to do nearly enough up to now. But it is also true that these bodies were endowed with powers as regards afforestation only within two years antecedent to the war.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In 1909.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: And they got to work in 1910. Between 1910 and the period of the war a good deal of work was started, not on as large a scale as it could be, partly because of the attitude of criticism by the very society of which the noble Earl spoke. But when the noble Earl tells us that, guided by the inspiration which is to come from London, there is to be a much better system of testing, training, and education, under the auspices of this afforestation body than can be given by local Universities or by local bodies set up consisting of those who are keen and anxious to make progress with the subject, he is making a great demand on the credulity of those countries which have been looking for more devolution.
The three great objections I have to this Bill are these. First of all it divorces small holdings and agriculture from sylviculture; secondly, it recalls devolution, so far as it already exists, and proposes to centralise matters; and, in the third place, it is an utterly inadequate conception of the amount of training and research necessary as a preparation for this great industry. Only a trifling percentage of the money which is to be voted is to be applied to research. The noble Earl spoke of research as being something which should be centralised—that you should have a

233
standard test. I entirely agree; only that is not the way. The way to get research is not to put it under a little body of people who are not trained to research. In the United States, where the Federal Government does not administer these things at all, there is an enormous amount of research done in Washington, because it is found that when you put the question of research into the hands of those who are not concerned with particular interests in administration you get the thing done on a larger and finer scale. The finest research' in the world is going on in the bureaux of Washington, which do not touch administration. So it ought to be here.
I am surprised that the noble Earl the Leader of the House listens to the suggestion that the general research which is wanted for sylviculture should be put into the hands of a small technical body like this. His duty is to preside over the general purpose of applying research to industry. He has departments under him, and powers of increasing those departments; and the right place for research in sylviculture (as for anything else), if it is not to be a farce, is that it should be under s Minister who is responsible for it. The noble Earl is the Minister responsible for research, and the noble Earl is the person to whom we look to organise it on a wide scale. It is not a matter to be left to the tender mercies of a small body like, this—a body not fitted by their training to deal with this subject, and not qualified to deal with it on anything like that scale. If you want knowledge and the spirit of high training you must look to the Universities and to those departments which are concerned with research as such. If you want to have high teaching in agriculture you must turn to a body which is not named in the Report—the Imperial College of Science and Technology, of which the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, knows a great deal.
The whole of this plan, so far as it is based and deals with training and research, is Lilliputian. It is safe to prophesy that the remedy for the serious state of matters has been totally misconceived by the Government in producing this Bill, and that it is totally inadequate for the solution of the great problems with which they are charged. The Bill, of course, is only a skeleton. For its flesh and blood you have to look to the Report of the Reconstruction Committee to which the noble
234
Earl referred. Against the early part of that Report I have not a word to say. It is a most instructive document; it gives details. It tells how the 3,000,000 acres which we had afforested in this country was only one-third of what it should have been. It tells how home production was only one-eighth of the total, and how that 2,000,000 acres, and probably 5,000,000 acres, are still available for development and planting. It then goes on to say—and I entirely agree—that long views are necessary in dealing with this problem. It also suggests that in the first ten years there should be an expenditure of close upon £3,500,000, and that in the next period the expenditure should rise to £15,000,000. The noble Earl admits that these are prewar prices; it is therefore a proposition to spend something between £25,000,000 and £40,000,000 out of public funds that we are dealing with at this moment.
I think it is a very serious thing in these days that the Government should propose to spend what may be £40,000,000 out of public moneys and take it entirely out of the control of Parliament. The proposition is not that this money should be produced year by year from the Estimates. It is to come out of the Consolidated Fund; and no doubt as it is doled out of the Consolidated Fund by the Treasury, Parliament will have a right to deal with the matter, but there is no Minister responsible to Parliament, and there is no means by which Parliament can get that efficient criticism which it would have if the matter came, before it on the Estimates,
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It must come on the Estimates.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Where does it come on the Estimates? How can money which comes out of the Consolidated Fund be made a matter of discussion on the Estimates? This is a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I read the words of the Bill? They are "Provided that the amount to be so issued and paid in each year shall be such as Parliament may determine." Parliament cannot determine except, in my opinion, by means of Estimates.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: And pray who is the Minister who is going to present the Estimates, and who will be responsible to

235
Parliament to explain them? He does not exist, and it is intended he should not exist. There is a most illuminating Report, by way of being a dissenting Report, by Lord Lovat, a most able Peer who has given great attention to this subject and has great knowledge of it, and who might have said things which would have been very valuable if he had not been under the influence of preconceived notions. From the Report it is quite plain why this was done. It says—
"The creation of a single forest authority for the British Isles is required—firstly, and principally, to make a definite break with the past, to get, out of the welter of conflicting authorities, and to escape from the arena of party politics—"
And then it goes on—
"Thirdly, to constitute a body who can…decide on purely forestal grounds the conflicting claims of the various countries, unbiassed by local or political pressure."
In other words, you want to keep this out of the hands of the House of Commons and to leave it in the hands of those who are not accountable to Parliament, with the result which we all know when anybody is put in that position for a certain number of years and begins to think of himself as irremovable. He is not under the same sort of obligation that people are under who have to be accountable at every turn, and you find the break-down of that which goes with adequate supervision.
The Bill transfers to this new body all the powers relating to forestry possessed by the Boards of Agriculture in Scotland, Ireland, and England, and it confers upon that new body the powers of purchasing and leasing land, dealing in timber, and so on. It enables them to grant loans for afforestation to private persons and public bodies, and there is a curious provision that if there is a profit it is to be taken by the Commissioners. How that is to be ascertained does not appear. It also says that provision is to be taken for the prevention of damage by rabbits and vermin, including squirrels. Nothing is said about deer and black game. Would it be unfair to ask the noble Earl what is the meaning of this? Does it not seem odd that the greatest enemies of trees—namely, deer and black game—are not mentioned, when you find that provision is made against rabbits and vermin, including squirrels?
To sum up the objections to this policy, I will ask your Lordships to contract the scheme of the Bill as I have described it
236
with what the Bill might have been. It might have been a Bill setting up research on the real footing it would have been had it been developed as some of the heads of research have been developed under the noble Earl opposite—research into topics connected with forestry available for the whole of the United Kingdom. You would have taken the Universities and recognised them. In this Report there is great ignoring of the real work done by the Universities. It is said that two University centres are enough—two centres of higher instruction! Is Oxford to be one?—Oxford, which is conspicuously devoid of everything that goes to make for complete conditions for the study of sylviculture. Cambridge has a real School of Forestry, and is doing fine work; it is the only one of the two Universities which is, so far as I know. No mention is made of Edinburgh, where there has been established a special degree for forestry, and where fifty students were working just before the war. Unless you take the thing in hand seriously, and encourage the training of those who are to go into this great branch of applied science on a high level—as high as that which a well-equipped University provides—you are sure to fail. This Report only devotes two pages to the question of education, and I see at once why, because looking about amongst the names of those who are responsible for the Report, though they are admirable men, eminent in every department of life, the academic flavour—the flavour of the kind of research which goes to the making of efficient and thorough practice—is wanting.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is most unjust to persons like Mr. T. H. Middleton and Professor Sir William Schlich.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am talking at this moment of the sort of men who have been developing, and developing enormously, the whole body of our knowledge with regard to the growth of trees.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Mr. Middleton?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Dear me, no! You have not got anything like what you require on the educational side, and when you look into the Report it is obvious that it is so. This Report is conceived, as we

237
are all apt to conceive things in England, on the notion that you can act first and think afterwards. The thinking side is most wanted, and anybody who observes the contrast between the way in which these things are worked out on the Continent and here, cannot fail to be struck with the difference. Then I come to another thing. How can you hope to develop the population which you want for sylviculture if you proceed on the footing of denying to those districts what they regard as their local authority? Why do you not take the Departments in England, Scotland, and Ireland and develop their powers? You may carry this Bill—possibly it may be carried by the other House—but of this I am certain, that there will be an agitation for its repeal, of a most violent character, very soon after it is passed. If you had not taken away from people what they are thoroughly capable of doing if they are given the necessary power—the Development Commission has given more attention to the scientific side of this matter than the whole of what is put in that Report together—you would have been further on than you are at the present date. The noble Earl knows that I allude to the conflict that has taken place on matters of administration, and so on, which gave rise to a most unseemly controversy.
What is wrong is that the whole matter has been initiated on too narrow a basis. "You ought to have brought together your great Landowners, your great men of science, and your great teachers. You ought to have brought together along with them those who are interested in developing the local communities which are required for the development of sylviculture, and you ought not to have been led away by false analogies. It is all very well to speak of France, but the case of France is totally different from the case of this country. In France the State possesses and has possessed great State forests, and all that has to be done is to maintain and look after them and take care of the population associated with them. For that reason the Department of the Government in France which deals with them is charged not merely with forestry but with a multitude of other things—for instance, with the water supply of the neighbourhood. The result is that in and around the French forests there is a population which has grown up and is maintained there.
238
There are many other occupations to engage these people.
If sylviculture is to flourish here, you will have to produce your forests first. That is true; but you will also have to find occupations for your people at the time when they are not engaged on forest work. The work of agriculture does not go on, so I am informed the highest authorities, at just the same time of the year as the work of sylviculture. The work of the sylviculture side is done in the main the winter and spring, and the agricultural work is done in the main at other times. By organisation you can find a certain continuity of employment. Moreover you can develop a considerable number of industries among the smallholders whom you have there, such as the making of wooden goods and a number of other things. How is that to be done by a sub-commission going down from London and taking charge of the affairs of the people in Kerry, or wherever the region may be where these, operations are demanded?
You cannot solve these problems in that fashion. You can only solve them if you will work your authority on a larger, wider and more thorough-going basis than anything which this Bill seems to dream of, so getting into the life and minds of the people the sense that what is being done is part of their national development and not something done merely at the instigation of a body sitting somewhere in Whitehall. The broad objections which I have to this Bill, therefore, go to the root of the whole matter. The evil to be redressed is so serious that I shrink very much from putting difficulty in the way of anything that is attempted to be done to remedy it, but so convinced am I that this attempt, based on the narrow grounds, will fail, and is bound to fail, that I feel the best course is to take this objection to it at the very beginning. If this Bill goes forward I am sure that it will not only give rise to disappointment, but will throw back the progress of the very cause which it was designed to further, and it is because I think that, and because I think it is a thoroughly retrograde and bad Bill, that I ask your Lordships not to assent to the Second Reading.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after "That" for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution: "this House, while fully recognising the importance and urgency in the national interest of the reform of

239
afforestation, declines to approve a measure which seeks (1) to withdraw the subject from control by the departments of Government already entrusted with it in England, Scotland and Ireland; (2) to divorce it from the local development of agriculture and of small holdings and the social surroundings they require in order to make any system of afforestation effective; and (3) to place the very large expenditure of public money contemplated outside the supervision of Parliament."—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I feel certain that those of your Lordships and those in the country generally who are interested in afforestation welcome very much the introduction of this measure, and will accept it as an indication that at last, after a great number of years of discussion, a Government has seen for itself the very serious nature of the timber position in this country, and is bringing forward a Bill on adequate lines to deal with it. We have had in the last thirty years a very large number of Commissions inquiring into this matter. Nearly all of them have recommended some form or another of education. In a certain number of those cases Governments have taken up the matter, and education has been advanced a stage. It has not gone very far, but at the same time it has laid a very important foundation upon which to build a forestry scheme in the future. There were two Commissions at least which put forward practical schemes of afforestation, the Commissions of 1907 and 1908, but in both cases the Government of the day shied at the cost, and no action was taken. My noble friend has told your Lordships of the enormous sum that we had to pay during the first two years of the war in consequence of no scheme having been carried out—a sum which would have financed many times over probably the most extravagant scheme of afforestation which has ever been before Parliament. Because we lost the opportunity in those days we have suffered very seriously.
The noble Viscount who has opposed the Second Reading of this measure has agreed regarding the very serious nature of the position. It needs no words to tell your Lordships what that position is. It is not only at the moment that we are dependent on abroad for nine-tenths of the timber used in this country, but the demand for that timber is always increasing, so much so that in the last fifty years, I believe, the amount of timber used per head in this country has increased from 3 cubic feet to 10 cubic feet per head, and that in spite
240
of the fact that every sort of substitute I has been brought and used in the place of timber. Our demands for timber are always increasing, and there is little prospect of an additional supply. The supply of the world is not increasing. We know that the main supply of the Empire in Canada, vast reserve as it is, is disappearing at a rate very much greater than its annual growth. It is not only the lumber companies, which are doing a great work in the forests of the West, but the ravages of fire. These fires burn not only the undergrowth but they even attack from time to time the larger timber, and I believe it is a fact that in Canada alone three times as much timber is destroyed by fire as is brought into use. Last week in The Times newspaper your Lordships may have seen that a fire was raging in Alberta, and that it has already destroyed 30,000,000 cubic feet of timber in that province.
The country from which we are mostly dependent for our supply is Russia, and the same position in regard to fire exists, we believe, in that country. There is no intensive cultivation, and no scientific regeneration. And it is clear that there, as elsewhere, the consumption of timber is greater than the annual supply. Secondly, we are bound to come to the conclusion that a time must come when, owing to the increasing demand and the lessening supply of timber, the demand will exceed the supply, and we shall not get what is required for our use. All our large industries are dependent upon a proper supply of timber. We have cut very largely into our resources. We see comparatively little prospect of getting an increased supply from the countries which have already provided us with timber. If this conclusion that I have come to is correct, it is clear that the Government is absolutely bound to take such steps as may be necessary to create a supply without delay, The noble Viscount opposite, although he is agreed as to the real danger of the timber position, considers that we may fairly trust to those methods which we have adopted in the past of obtaining that supply.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No, develop them.
LORD CLINTON: That is to say, put it into the hands of these same Boards and Commissions and Departments as have been carrying on the work of afforestation

241
in the past. I think most people in the country will judge those. Departments by the practical results of what they have done. Can the noble Viscount say that the work of those Departments has had any serious effect whatever on the timber supply of this country?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No. I did not say that. I said that you ought to aim at improving those Departments and at building them up, and I tried to explain how you could do it, instead of taking all their work away and putting it into different hands.
LORD CLINTON: We have been trying to build up these Departments for twenty-five years, and the result is that we are no better off for timber than we were before. We are still the worst timber-producing country, with one exception, I think, in the world. And I am very much afraid that practical people will not agree with the noble Viscount and think it is wise to go back to those Departments which have failed us in the past. It is not my arty to criticise the work of those Departments. They may have had—they undoubtedly have had—great difficulties, more perhaps than I have any knowledge of. But the reason why the noble Viscount thinks that one of them, the Development Commission, has not carried out the full work of afforestation is that it has not the full means for the purpose.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: indicated assent.
LORD CLINTON: The noble Viscount nods his head. Now, may we go into those figures? There have been considerable means placed at the disposal of that Commission. I think since their institution about nine years ago, either by grant or by way of loan, they have had to spend something like £2,500,000. Will the noble Viscount remark that when that Development Commission was brought into being it was for the purposes of afforestation and agriculture? Afforestation, I think, came first. When that measure was introduced the present Prime Minister said that he hoped that it might bring about a large and increasing extension of the timber supply of this country. But what the Development Commission spent on agriculture out of that £2,500,000 is £1,500,000—considerably more than half of the whole. What they have spent on afforestation, including
242
loans, is under £250,000. On that I do not think the noble Viscount is entitled to say that if the Development Commission had larger funds they would have been able to do more. They have not used the funds at their disposal for the purposes of afforestation.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The Development Commission said you must get knowledge before you expend your money, otherwise it would be thrown away, and they did that. They have had an educational policy at their very front.
LORD CLINTON: Every one will agree with the noble Viscount that it would be very unwise to start the work until you have learnt how to do it. There was a good deal of knowledge in this country already. There was much less scientific knowledge than ought to have been collected by the people concerned. But you cannot begin and end with education; you must carry on your work in these very difficult times alongside your education. And I am quite certain that if the noble Viscount found nine years hence that the Commission which will be appointed under this Bill had done nothing but educational work he would say they were very much in fault.
We complain of the Development Commission and of these other Boards because they have not got down to practical work, and they have had no effect on the timber supply of this country. There is, I think, quite sufficient reason why they have not got down to practical afforestation work. I think my noble friend below me dealt with the question slightly, but I should like to say one word about it. It is because with not one of those Boards or Commissions has afforestation been their primary work. It has always been a matter to them of secondary importance. It has been tacked on to them after they were formed. It is not work for which they were ever constituted, or in which they were interested. And all those bodies have had enormous pressure brought to bear upon them from thousands of people interested in the main duties for which they were constituted in order to obtain assistance in carrying out those duties, but the pressure for afforestation—which after all, unfortunately, does not interest many people—was not brought to bear, and quite naturally they spent their funds upon other purposes. The fact that the Board were not interested in the subject has been the

243
death of afforestation in this country. To carry on afforestation properly you want not only knowledge and energy, but you want interest and enthusiasm. Unless you have that you cannot have the driving force behind you which will make you carry out an afforestation scheme. And unless this work is given to a body whose main and full duty is afforestation I do not think you will ever get it.
In connection with the finance of the Bill my noble friend has pointed out that this financial clause was framed before the present great rise in cost had come about, and consequently the whole scheme would not be covered. It has been suggested that grants or arrangements may be made with private owners for carrying on the work. It will be of enormous importance to the State if they can persuade owners to do some part of the work. We must have timber in the country in some way. We must have it profitably if we can, and I am afraid it is quite clear that with the present cost, and, above all, the present value of money the most profitable way of growing timber will be to persuade somebody else to do it for you, even if you have to give him a considerable cash inducement to do so.
The proposal in the Repast in Mr. Acland's Committee was that a grant should be made to owners to encourage them to go on with the work. It was a very small grant, small even in relation to the cost of planting at the time it was proposed, but insignificant in proportion to the cost of planting at this moment. But under this Bill there is a proviso, I think, to Clause 3, saying that when there is a profit upon growing any crop of timber which has been grown with the assistance of the Government grant so much of that profit as may be attributable to the particular grant shall be returned to the Government. I would like to point out to my noble friend, first of all, that we are very anxious to know what is the meaning of profit. Does it mean what remains over to the owner after he has spent his first capital, and then accumulated at 5 per cent. compound interest on that capital, his annual cost of management, of supervision, of rates and taxes, and death duties when they occur up to the period of maturity? If that is what you mean by profit, then I do not think that the Government is going to get very much.
244
My objection to it, however, is not because the Government will get very little but because of the immense trouble there will be to owners and also to the Commission in arriving at what really has been spent year after year upon a few acres of woodland which may be, and will be, separated over many different parts of the country. I really think that the trouble in getting out these calculations will stop altogether any possible encouragement there may be in connection with this grant, and you will not get the assistance of owners in planting which I think it is of very great importance to the State that it should get. I think my noble friend may drop that particular proviso; and I think it is worth his consideration whether it would not be sufficient to say that when an owner had accepted a grant from the Commission the State itself should have a lien over the forest, and should be entitled to purchase it any time for its own purposes. That would give the State sufficient control over the spending of this money, and at the same time do away with these difficulties in accounting as between the private owner and the State. In conclusion, I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading. It appears to me to be a measure under which we shall get some amount of timberland planted in thin country, and I trust that it may be obtained without any undue delay.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I confess that I address von with some doubt and trepidation though I am one who in a small way has attempted to plant trees—sometimes with some success and at other times with very poor success. At the same time I am only too anxious to learn what I can; and to-night especially I should like to ascertain with regard to this Bill exactly what it is wished to do.
The noble Earl who introduced the measure drew a very gloomy picture of the state of our woods—I ant afraid none too gloomy—and also of the enormous bill which we have had to pay during the war for timber imported from overseas. I listened very carefully to his opening remarks in order to hear how this was to be remedied in the future. I heard his explanation of the Bill, and I was much interested in his remarks on the question of training and investigation. I also paid close attention to the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount who moved the rejection of the Bill. But during all those remarks

245
I confess that I heard very little about what the Government, proposed to do to make up for the sad deficiency of timber. After all, the chief point we have to consider is that at the beginning of the war we had a very insufficient, supply of timber in this country. The noble Earl said that we had to import, a great deal, and he hoped that this would not occur again. I should imagine that the immediate answer to that on the part of the ordinary man would be, "If it is thought to be for the nation's good that we should be self-supporting in the matter of timber, and be ready for another great war, the first thing to do is to plant the trees as quickly as possible." It is much the same sort of position with the housing question. I am not quite certain that there has not been more talk about housing than about building houses.
If it is necessary that we should have a sufficient supply of timber in the event of another war, surely the chief thing to do is to plant the trees at once. But we get headed off from that and plunged into questions of research, commissions, investigations, education, and a great many other points. I lay no claim to be a timber expert, but the thing is surely not so extraordinarily difficult as to make it necessary for all these scientific gentlemen to meet together to set up commissions, and to have so many learned discussions on the subject. If we are going to supply timber for this country the wood which is chiefly required is the soft wood of fir trees. There is no particular mystery about the growing of fir trees. No doubt a great many people differ on the subject of planting. Some think that larch is planted on land suitable for spruce; others think that spruce should be planted where fir ought to grow. From my small experience I should say that there are as many opinions as there are scientific people who tell you about the matter. The people who know the particular locality can generally tell you what trees will grow there. It seems to me that if there really is a genuine desire to make the country self-supporting in the way of timber the principal thing to do, instead of setting up commissions and appointing lecturers and professors, is to set to work and employ people to rear the trees and then to dig the holes in which to plant them.
There have been failures, of course. When you have set up all these colleges for
246
research and appointed these teachers you will have as many failures in the future. I will give a small example which, perhaps, has been one of the saddest things in connection with timber in this country. I refer to the larch tree. We all know that before the war the only timber out of which there was any chance of making a profit was a larch plantation, and, if properly managed, it did just pay. Suddenly a large number of people spent big sums of money in planting larch plantations. Then the larch disease appeared. In many districts in England, Scotland, and Wales all the larch trees were destroyed by a pest. I am the last person to run down research and investigation, but there have been marry learned people dealing with these matters and many have looked into the' question of the larch disease; I have received hundreds of pamphlets on the subject; and although I have unfortunately now forgotten them, at one time I was-very learned about the life history of the pests which destroyed the larch. Yet I never found out what I chiefly wanted to know—namely, how the pest was to be killed and how the disease was to be overcome. I am one of those who believe that however many centres of research you have, however many Chairs you have at the Universities to find out these matters, there are things which defeat the scientists, and we suffer from these various plagues with the consequent grave losses. I mention that question because in this debate I think a little too much stress has been laid on the questions of training, Of education, and of scientific research. I for one certainly think that though greater grants should, perhaps, be given to our Universities to assist in this matter, the main principle of any serious effort to make this country self-supporting in timber is to plant trees.
Now we come to the question of the Bill—how the trees are going to be planted. I am subject to correction, but I understand that a sum of £3,500,000 has been laid aside for this purpose in the next ten years. That is not going to do much. It is going to do very little indeed if, out of the proceeds of that £3,500,000, you are going to pay three Commissioners, probably the expenses of four more Commissioners, the expenses of Assistant Commissioners and the large staff of which the noble Earl spoke when he moved the Second Reading. In fact, one of the chief arguments in favour of this Bill was that

247
there was going to be a large Department and consequently people would have a chance of rising in it; that people who entered this Department would have a great future before them. In addition to that you have to set up a superannuation scheme to pension these gentlemen when they are no longer wanted. Personally, I think your £3,500;000 is going to be frittered away and that precious few trees will be planted.
If you come to the crucial point, first of all do you want the individual owner to plant? If you do, I think you will have to make different provisions than there are in this Bill. The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to that very complicated proviso at the end of Clause 4 which I confess I do not understand. I, do not know how the profits, it any, are to be divided. I think there should be a special red line placed under the words "if any" The proviso is not intelligible. It is not clear from it how the profits are to be divided. As far as I can see there are, only two methods under which trees are going to be planted. They are either that the Commissioners will make grants to private owners to help them plant woods again, or else they will buy land and plant woods themselves. Personally, I should have preferred a Bill boldly stating that you were going to set up a small Commission which would buy land and that the money would be devoted to planting trees. I think that could be worked with a training school and that it would be a practical proposition.
I am very much afraid that this Bill is "neither flesh, fish, fowl, nor good red herring." I do not know whether it is a Bill fur teaching foresters to go in for research and science or whether it is a Bill to supply this country with timber in the next forty or sixty or eighty years. As I said before, I am not one in time least to belittle the advice of people who have made forestry a great study, but I have been singularly disappointed in the past by Government efforts to assist in any way private persons in this matter. We heard a great deal at one time about the Government having purchased an estate in Scotland. I think it was about the year 1909. We heard that they had planted a tract of country there and that we were going to learn how we ought to manage our woods. I eagerly took up the Report of the first year's proceedings under this re-afforestation
248
scheme. Having read a good deal about the difficulties there, I finally read that in the first year the rabbits had eaten up a good many of the trees. Really one need not employ a Government Department and scientific people to teach you that rabbits eat trees. Yet that was the only information which was contained in the first Report which we had of this great scheme set up in Scotland. If noble Lords like to turn up the Report they will find that that is the information they receive from it. I may be quite wrong and I should be only too pleased, if any other noble Lord speaks from the Government Bench, to learn that I am wrong in my conception of the Bill, and that by this Bill millions of acres will be replanted, that private owners will receive every encouragement and that the State will purchase land and plant trees itself. But certainly, from listening to the speech of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading, I confess I thought a great deal of the money was going to be spent on a new Department that was going to be set up and that we were going to have a considerable number of officials.
I do not quite know how far their powers will go, but it seems to me doubtful whether they will not be able to enter upon our land as they like, to inspect. all our woods and tell us what we ought to do, whether we like it or not, and whether we know better than they or they know better than we, or whether they will interfere with anybody who is doing his best for forestry. During the past four and a-half years I have had experience of Government control. If the Government are going to help I should be very pleased that they should do so. But I will say this, I do not think there is any particular mystery in planting the Scotch fir and larch trees in this country. If it is really necessary that as speedily as possible we should try to restore our forest-growing areas in this country, the first necessity is that the Government themselves should set to work to plant trees and also by every means in their power help private owners to do so.
I will say only one other thing in conclusion. I believe far more help could be given to the production of timber in this country and the encouragment of private owners to plant trees if something further was done in connection with the taxation of woodlands. After all, that is the main crux of the question. The moment a thing gives the least promise of being

249
profitable private people will step in and plant trees, and I believe they will plant them successfully. So long as they think the Government of the day is going to treat timber, which is a very uncertain thing, in an unfair way as regards taxation, so long, I am certain, will the planting of timber in this country be hampered. I may speak with some little pride on this question, because I think I was the first person in another place who got the Government of the day to agree, in an Amendment under the Finance Bill, that trees should pay only one lot of estate duty—that is to say, when they are cut down and realised. Up to that time it might happen that growing timber might pay Estate Duty three or four times over before being cut down. I pointed out the extreme unfairness of it and it was recognised by the Government, although a good many societies interested in arboriculture have taken a good deal of the credit in the matter. It was an Amendment that I moved several years ago in another place which, for the first time, secured from the Government recognition of the fact that if you wanted trees to be planted you must deal fairly with the owners as regards taxation.
Though I know that at the present moment concessions have been made under the Finance Act as regards the occupiers of woodlands and than woodlands are no longer assessed under schedule B at double income tax, I still think those concessions ought to go considerably further, considering what an extraordinary risk there is about the growing of timber. After all when we come to deal with this question, it is not only a scientific question as to whether you always put in the right tree or lop off the right branch. There are a good many things which the scientists cannot help. They cannot help a sudden pest which kills the trees; they cannot help snow storms or gales and, considering the hundred and one enemies which face the person who plants trees, I say it is only fair and right that the Government should give every consideration to that person as regards taxation. In my opinion, still further recognition of that fact in future Finance Bills would have a greater effect in getting trees planted in the country than the setting up of this body of Commissioners who are to spend a good deal of money in teaching experts and scientific people to find out what is, perhaps, known already.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, it is not my intention to detain your Lordships more than two or three minutes, but I should like to take the opportunity of saying that the present situation has become, a rather serious one. Any one who has during the last few months travelled, through our once wonderful woodlands in any part of this country, either in England or Scotland, cannot fail to have noticed the terrible barrenness, almost devastation, that is apparent in all directions. In places where before noble trees reared their heads there is now nothing but barren wastes. This is a sacrifice that has been made by this country to the war, and we gladly and ungrudgingly have made this sacrifice in the same way that we have in money and in lives. But now, my Lords, the time has come to repair these great wastes and to bring forward some measure that will co-ordinate the action of the various authorities.
For many years various authorities have-been responsible for afforestation, and during those years precious little has been done. We have now before us a Bill in which I know for a fact that two or three very energetic and eminent men are going to take a leading part as Commissioners. Even before the war there was a great need for some co-ordination, and I think the time has far passed when the matter was last taken up. A great many years ago the so-called deer forests of the Highlands of Scotland were really great forests amongst which wandered the early Picts and Scots. These trees have gradually fallen down and perished, and now form the great peat beds upon which every Highlander depends for his fuel for all purposes. Now other animals, such as sheep and deer, wander over these desolate wastes, and except for the small clumps of trees in the sheltered valleys there is no attempt to utilise these great stretches of country by planting. I am not one to suggest that trees will grow on the tops of mountains, but there are great tracts of country where woodlands could be satisfactorily established, and where a great and growing industry could be carried on for the betterment of the Highlands.
I shall not attempt to enter into the practical details of this Bill. I am only attempting to show that its general principle is right. It is important to see that all young trees that are planted anywhere near tire deer forests are thoroughly and

251
safely wired in. I do not consider that deer come under the head of vermin. Rabbits and vermin must be ruthlessly destroyed in the proximity of any young timber. The replanting of our woodlands is an all important matter and we cannot leave it to private initiative. Private landowners in Scotland, at any rate, would be faced with a great deal of opposition if they attempted to enclose for replanting woodlands which have been used for the grazing of stock by farmers and crofters. For a time it must mean a reduction in the grazing areas available, but later it will fully repay any loss on this head, and it is essential for the nation to possess a great reserve of timber for another national emergency such as the last one and thus be self-supporting in this direction.
Afforestation should, if properly conducted on these lines, be a great source of wealth to the nation and as much a staple trade as farming and food production, more especially in view of the coming world shortage of timber and the consequent enhanced prices. Timber in Sweden is practically exhausted, and as time goes on we shall have to go further and further afield for our requirements. We shall have to go to Newfoundland, Western Canada, East Africa, and to the Central African forests, with the consequent great cost of marketing and shipping freights. Another reason why private endeavour is not more marked in the direction of planting on an extensive scale at the present day is that the period between planting and cutting would in most soils be a very long one, and the same man who sows could never reap the crop. The landowner's future is such an uncertain one in this country that he naturally hesitates before embarking a large amount of capital in a scheme of which he himself will probably never see the fulfilment. It is therefore a matter that must be taken up by the State on the lines of the Bill before your Lordships' House.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I would like with your permission to deal with one or two points which have been raised by noble Lords on bath sides of the House and also by the noble Viscount. I think the Government may be satisfied because they have been criticised, on the one hand that research and education is dealt with it such a liberal manner, and on the other that too much money is going to be spent in research and education and not enough in the planting of trees. If the Government have
252
arrived at the happy medium I congratulate them and also congratulate my fellow members on the Committee who put certain views before the Government on the subject.
May I assure the noble Viscount—I do not know what the Government's intentiors are—that as far as the discussions went on the Reconstruction Sub-Committee and the Interim Authority it has been made clear, and the noble Viscount will see it if he reads that Report, that we unanimously arrived at the opinion that the time had come when some trees should be planted. If he will read further in that. Committee's Report he will see that the amount of timber which it was suggested should be planted in the first ten years is 250,000 acres, of which a portion will be planted by the State and a portion it is hoped by private enterprise, aided by the State and by expert advice.
As to the question of personnel, which the noble Viscount raised, may I assure him, as one who has gone closely into the question, that it is quite certain you will have a smaller number of officials if you have a central authority than if you had uncontrolled research and education going on in three different parts of the country with no connection one with the other. It is one of the central ideas that if you have one organisation which will give a lead and indication which way research is to go, you will necessarily have the ground covered in a better way than if you have three different departments, all running on uncontrolled lines. The noble Viscount took the Earl of Crawford to task for saying there was a chance of promotion. Surely it is better to have one single forestry service right through the country, so that there may be billets going which will attract the best brains. I at once join issue on certain remarks of the noble Viscount. In America and France they have one service, and so you get this promotion, and having a large organisation you are able to pay good salaries to the men at the top. Unless you have attractive billets to offer you will certainly not attract the best class of men, and you will not have those billets to offer if you have three smaller organisations for the three countries.
So much for the points which the noble Earl raised on the speech of the noble Viscount. I have no authority to speak for anybody but myself, but I should like to say that the speech of the noble Viscount

253
was a most unfair one. He put intentions into the Bill, and he made statements about the Reconstruction Committee, which I think when he reads them in cold print to-morrow he will see had no justification. I will further say that the noble Viscount had not really read his brief very carefully. I will come to one or two matters shortly. The noble Viscount reads into the Bill intentions which I do not believe exist, unless the whole policy thought out by the Reconstruction Committee and acted on by the Interim Authority is to be thrown over by the permanent authority when created. For instance, such matters as research, which the noble Viscount says is viewed from a niggardly point of view. May I assure him that the very first action of the Chairman of the Interim Authority was at once to put himself and the Interim Authority in Communication with the Imperial College of Science.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Did he communicate with the noble Earl, who is the Minister responsible for this?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is not the charge.
LORD LOVAT: I cannot say His Majesty's Government and the members of the Front Bench have for the past six months had their time fully occupied. The Interim Authroity has surely got a right to carry out the work for which it is appointed. In the same acts one of the first acts of the Interim Authority was to go to Edinburgh and get in touch with the work that was being done there. At Oxford and Cambridge we have had frequent meetings with those principally concerned with education, and work has been done in certain inquiries which was not done in the whole of the ten years when the Development Commissioners held the reins of office. I submit that the noble Viscount makes a very unjust criticism if he thinks the Interim Authority and the, future authority are not going to carry on this research work. The research will be done by the Universities, but guided from a centre, instead of having the work duplicated in half a dozen directions as it is to-day. You will have one ad hoc body seeing that these important schemes are thoroughly carried out.
I do not want to say anything in criticism of either the Board of Agriculture or of the Development Commission, but really if one
254
compares what has been done here in Great Britain with what has been done in France, where you have a single authority and a single control, the difference really speaks for itself. In this country, until the Interim Authority had a report made On the question of the devastation of woods I do not know that there had been any report. I would submit that there should have been a definite programme on this question, such as they have in France. If you had a single authority thinking out schemes for the whole of Great Britain you would save tens or hundreds of thousands, and probably millions, of pounds. Then, again, if the noble Viscount chooses to read the Report of the Reconstruction Committee he will see what the Development Commission actually did. In the planting of trees they did practically nil, and the amount of construction work done in the ten years is also not great. No survey was made. One of the first actions of the Interim Authority was to collate and bring together the surveys of Great Britain, including. such matters as what trees would grow in various areas. None of that work had been done, though it ought to have been the first work of any authority which had been running for ten years.
Therefore, my Lords, for the noble Viscount to say that the Interim Authority or the Reconstruction Committee approached this subject from a narrow-minded or small-minded point of view is unjustified. The next point to which I would like to refer relates to the remarks of the noble Viscount on the subject of small holdings in connection with forestry. I would like at once to join issue with him on the statements he has made. I would like to point out that in the Report of the Reconstruction Committee, at page 28, he will find that we have laid it down that small holdings must go hand in hand with forestry. That is not true of Great Britain only. It is equally true of forestry in France, where you will see around every large forest a very large number of small holdings. In this connection may I put it quite clearly how simple is the distinction between what is really forestry work and what is the small holding work of the Board of Agriculture. The Forestry Authority is concerned with land which cannot be ploughed. The land which is under 5s. value per acre, which is either so poor for grazing purposes or cannot be ploughed, primarily is the interest of the Forestry Department. The agricultural land or heavy grazing land,

255
which is worth over 5s. an acre and therefore is too expensive to plant, is primarily the concern of the Board of Agriculture. In the purchase of any estate or piece of land in which the two are concerned there will naturally be an interchange of ideas between the forest authority and the local Board of Agriculture, and it would be decided which land should be taken for forestry and which should be for agricultural purposes. The forest Authority will merely concern itself with the planting of trees and with those individuals who are permanently occupied in forestry—that is to say the forest officer, or the local woodman, and the planters and sawyers and so on. The rest of the land will be handed over to the Board of Agriculture to create that number of small holdings which will give permanent employment throughout the year to the men. There is no overlapping. You will have agriculture for the Board of Agriculture and forestry for the ad hoc Authority. The matter is perfectly simple and it is being done every day in Scotland. There, if more small holdings are required, the agent deals with the question of small holdings, while the forester deals with all arrangements under which the forestry will be done. The noble Viscount stated that a Sub-Commissioner will go down from London to settle the small holders' affairs. I do not think the noble Viscount has read the Bill. The Sub-Commissioner is a resident person in each country. There is a Sub-Commissioner for England, for Scotland, and for Ireland. To say, therefore, that a Sub-Commissioner will come down from London is either ridiculous, or is a wilful statement of what is not in the Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Who is to appoint him? Is he to be appointed in London or Scotland?
LORD LOVAT: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I do not wish to be taken from my point. Your Lordships will bear me out when I say that the noble Viscount stated that "the Sub-Commissioner would come down from London to settle the smallholders' affairs."
VISCOUNT HALDANE: So he will.
LORD LOVAT: But he is not to be in London.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, but he is to be appointed in London.
LORD LOVAT: I do not think the noble Viscount's words convey exactly what is in the Bill. The other point dealt with by the noble Viscount was that it would be most advantageous that the existing bodies should carry on the work. I do not wish to say more than a word on this. Existing bodies have had from ten to forty years' control, and they have not done the work. If your Lordships will return to the Report of the Committee you will see that pages 7 and 9—practically two and a-half pages—cover the Committees which have sat—Departmental Committees, Royal Commissions, local inquiries and I know not what else. Yet nothing has been done. The first date goes back to 1833. I was reading a day or two ago that we had inquiries even before that. In the previous century—in 1700—an inquiry was undertaken, but no action has been taken. Money has been spent, as was pointed out by Lord Clinton. For Scotland it was voted under two heads—under the Reconstruction Committee and under the Small Holdings Act of 1911. Still the sum total of action in Scotland at the time the Reconstruction Committee reported is represented by only some 100 acres planted. In view, therefore, of the failure of the past we think it is worth while to consider whether a body should not be appointed which has the time and the driving power to put the matter through.
May I assure the noble Lord that after seeing three or four weeks' work of the Committee I am appalled at the amount of work to be done before forestry can be put in a position in which an orderly start can be made. I am sure that the intention of the Board of Agriculture and the Reconstruction Committee has been excellent throughout, but I am quite certain that a very much greater work requires to be done in view of the reconstruction programme that is before them. They have not had the time in the past to do all that was required, and they certainly cannot have the time in the future to put forward a forestry policy on adequate lines. I think that is the strongest argument in favour of a central authority with local executives. That will provide the driving power which is necessary. I should like to take exception both to the noble Lord's speech to-night, and also to the statements continually made in the public Press, that

257
there is no real local executive. The central authority as is seen by the Bill will be a small controlling body. It will lay down the broad lines of policy in order to make it one worthy of the big purpose in view. The control of this authority is subject to review annually when the Vote comes up in the House of Commons. The local executive work will be done entirely in the various countries and. I do not think it can be contended that Scotland is not going to be better off that it would be if it had its own control. It is quite obvious that Scotland according to the Report of the Reconstruction Committee will be very much better off than it was going to be under the usual grants made by Parliament. For these reasons I think we must hold that a single authority is required if you are to have a real forest policy, and to avoid the dual control which would necessarily come if you had an ad hoc authority governing the broad principles of forestry. You must have some control.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I shall only stand one very brief moment between the House and the Division. As the Forestry Sub-committee on whose Report this Bill is based was appointed by Mr. Asquith on my recommendation when I was President of the Board of Agriculture, I should like to say something. In the first place, very soon it was impressed upon me, when I held that office; that the present provision for dealing with forestry was wholly inadequate. I will go further and say that I became personally convinced that without a centralised authority it is quite impossible that forestry could take its place as a national industry. In the second place, when we had, at war, to deal with the question of timber supply, we found at once that it could be dealt with only through a central authority. All the peace arrangements for dealing with forestry separately in the three parts of the United Kingdom were scrapped, and the whole thing was put in the hand of a central authority. Thirdly, we became absolutely convinced, if this country should by any great and terrible misfortune be caught again by a great war within the next half century, that unless the forests had been developed in this country in the meantime our position would be most parlous, because the supply of timber for the country's need for military purposes or for the coal mines could not possibly be calculated on in the future, and this
258
country would have been exhausted. Therefore this question of afforestation became part of the national problem of defence. Then the Forestry Committee was appointed. You have the Report before you, and I want to say in conclusion that I think the country owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. friend Mr. Francis Acland, who presided over the Forestry Committee. He has been doing the work of the Interim Authority and if forestry is put in its true position as a great national industry the statue of Mr. Franics Acland ought to be put in the entrance hall of the Office.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, by the Cruelty to Animals Act no operation which is likely to cause pain may be performed on an animal for the purposes of experiment or research unless an anæsthetic is used, but in regard to operations which are not in the normal course of events for experiment or research it is not necessary to use an anesthetic at all. This Bill proposes to make good that omission.
It is said that this Bill is not necessary. A resolution has been passed against it in various parts of the country, in which the Bill is described as injurious and as being detrimental to the interests of stockholders. But if the Bill were not necessary it is quite obvious that resolutions of that character would not be passed. It would be absurd to say that any Bill making anésthetics compulsory for an operation on a human being was injurious to that human being, or detrimental to the interests of those concerned. Therefore it seems to me that it is absurd to say that this Bill is unnecessary when these phrases are used in regard to animals.
The Bill is quite a simple one. It preposes in Clause 1 subsection (2) that a horse, cat, dog, or bovine should not have the operations performed which are indicated in Schedules 1, 2, and 3, unless those animals are put under a general anésthetic, and that these animals should not be sub-

259
jected to the operations mentioned in Schedules 4,5, and 6 unless under a general or local anésthetic. Clause 1, subsection (2) (b) provides that horses two years old and over shall not be subjected to the operation of castration without a general anæsthetic. That is a clause with which I do not agree. I have had the opportunity of talking with veterinary surgeons and other practitioners who constantly do this operation, and it is very much in dispute as to whether that operation is not better performed standing up without an anæsthetic than when an animal is down.
In Clause 1 subsection (2) (e) it is laid down that no person shall administer an anésthetic, either general or local, who is not a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner registered under the Acts of 1881 and 1900. That sub-clause would cut out some very valuable practitioners who, although very highly qualified, are not actually registered veterinary surgeons. Not only would it take away from them the means of livelihood but (what is of still more importance) they would be prevented from carrying out these operations—very difficult operations many of them—if this clause were passed. Many of these practitioners, although they are not registered, have been doing these operations for many years, and in some cases are among the most skilled operators that we have in the country. If your Lordships' give a Second Reading to this Bill I should propose to drop that sub-clause.
Clause 2 enacts that any person who is guilty of an offence under the Bill shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of the first offence to a sum not exceeding £5 and in respect of any second or subsequent offence to a sum not exceeding £25 and possibly a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months either in substitution or in addition to the £25. Clause 3 would enable the Board of Agriculture to add other domestic animals to those mentioned in the Bill upon whom operations could not be carried out without an anésthetic, and would also enable them to add further operations if they so desired. It also lays on the Board of Agriculture the duty of saying what particular drugs are to be considered as local or general anæsthetics. The draft of any such order would be published for two months before it could come into operation, and a copy of it would be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and would only come
260
into effect if neither House objected to it after it had lain on the Table of both Houses for a period of not less than thirty days during which the House was sitting. Clause 4 contains merely definitions of no great importance, and Clause 6 applies the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom. Then we come to the Schedules, to which I have already referred.
I see that my noble friend Lord Strachie has a Motion on the Paper to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Personally I have no objection to that course, except for one reason. Private Members' Bills in another place very often have little chance of getting through, and if the Select Committee were to hang up this Bill for a considerable period it would only return to another place late in the session, when, I am afraid, the Bill might be lost; and, as this Bill has passed through the whole of its stages in another place already, that would be a great misfortune, as it is a Bill which, I am sure all your Lordships would wish, at any rate in principle, to see carried out at the earliest possible moment. I understand that His Majesty's Government are inclined to favour the appointment of a Select Committee, and I hope that if the House agrees to take that course the Government will ensure that time is given in another place and facilities afforded in order that this valuable Bill may be passed into law. Otherwise I am bound to say I hope your Lordships will feel that the Bill should go through in the ordinary way, and that we should amend it as I have suggested in Committee, and if your Lordships consider that other Amendments are also necessary I should be only too glad to consider them.
Although there have been a certain number of resolutions passed against this Bill, particularly perhaps one by the Royal Agricultural Society, I think they passed that resolution without full knowledge of the Bill; in fact, it is quite clear from the Report of the Council, which I have beside me. I understand now that they are in favour of a Bill of this character being passed, particularly if the Amendments which I have already mentioned are made in the Bill. I therefore hope that your Lordships will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading, and that it will be pushed through during this session of Parliament so that it may become law as soon as possible.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I am sure this is a Bill with the object of which the whole House will be in the fullest sympathy. It will alleviate no doubt a great deal of suffering which is caused to some animals who are essential to the preservation of human life, and to others which add so much to our pleasure and enjoyment and which give us in the fullest measure their love and their confidence. Therefore I hope that the House will read this Bill a second time.
We must take care, however, that the provisions in the Bill are really practicable, an I that we can bring the Bill into effect. If we do not take care on that point the Bill will probably defeat its own object. You will have operations which might alleviate and possibly remove the misery of the animal put off, and the animal left to linger in misery if you make them impracticable or too expensive. That is the only difficulty which the Government feel about this Bill; that as the Bill stands to-day we do not think that it could be carried out in considerable parts of Ireland and of Scotland, and even in some parts of England and Wales. As the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading has suggested, no doubt a particular clause might be dropped out; but I can assure him that even to do that, now that the question has once been raised, would be a matter of some difficulty; and it is with a view of seeing that the Bill is made practically workable that we desire to see it referred to a Select Committee.
At the same time I should like to say that we most emphatically wish the Committee to report as speedily as possible and to secure the immediate passage of the Bill. If I may put it to the House, there are some special circumstances about this Bill which rather make that course necessary. The Bill was introduced a good many years ago in a form that was approved by agricultural societies as well as by veterinary surgeons. This Bill as introduced into the House, of Commons and read a second time was in effect that Bill which had been so approved; but when it went to the Standing Committee it was very largely amended. This particular provision which has already been referred to was inserted, the scope of the Bill was enlarged, the number of operations was extended, and it was a somewhat different Bill which emerged from the Standing Committee. Yet when it came again before the House the
262
Memorandum describing the Bill remained unaltered, and was precisely the same as that which hall prefaced the Bill originally introduced. I cannot help thinking that this may have explained the fact that the Third Reading of the -Bill as amended by the Standing Conintittee—this Bill which had been so substantially altered—passed through sub silentio. Therefore I think that we should be in a better position to discuss this Bill satisfactorily if we had a Report upon it from a Select Committee. I would. remind your Lordships that the scope of the Inquiry is very narrow, that it would not take long to get such a Report, and that I see no reason why the Report should not be furnished and the Bill passed in the present Session. I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given notice, in the event of the Bill being read 2a, to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. I understand from my noble friend in charge of the Bill that he will offer no opposition, and that the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture thinks this is the right course to adopt. I will not say anything more except to tell the noble Earl that he is not right in thinking that the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society had not the Bill before them. I happen to be a Member of the Council, and the Bill was there ready to be discussed; in fact, it was shown to me for the first time in the Council Chamber. They were opposed to it on its merits and not merely from hearsay. A strong argument why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee is that it was not properly digested in another place, and it is desirable that what was not done there should be done here by a Select Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order) and, passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they have appointed a Committee to consist of seven members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the Government of India Bill, and requesting their Lordships to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the members appointed by the Commons.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, on behalf of the Lord President I beg to move that the Commons Message be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Lords following be named of the Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider the Government of India Bill—

Marquess of Crewe.

Earl of Selborne.

Viscount Midleton.

Duke of Northumberland.

Lord Islington.

Lord Sinha.

Lord Sydenham.

—(Lord Sinha.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
  WOMEN'S EMANCIPATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.
[From Minutes of July 3.]
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (RATES) BILL. [H.L.]
  LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. [H.L.]
  CLOWES SETTLED ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed for Tuesday next.
GOVERNMENT WORKS AT CIPPENHAM.
Report from the Joint Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence, together with Appendices, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect to the Petition for a Bill by the

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company

ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect to the Petition for a Bill by the

Cannock Urban District Council

ought to be dispensed with.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
DOVER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
  PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Lucan be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Hindlip; read, and agreed to.
    [From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, July 4.]

BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill intituled an Act to dissolve the marriage of Maurice Boland with Annie Boland his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented (on Petition), and a copy of the

265
Proceedings in and of the Decree of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench Division (Matrimonial): Delivered on Oath): Bill read 1a, and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 15th instant.
Order for Witness to attend on the Second Reading of the Bill.

PALLIN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.