§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD CLINTONMy Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-night is one to provide for greater uniformity in the weights and measures used in the sale of corn and other crops. In order to reach some uniformity we have to get rid of those almost innumerable measures which now govern the sale of corn and other agricultural seeds in this country. They are a cause of great confusion in the trade, and the confusion is increased because a considerable number of these measures are similar in name and vet, in different parts of the country, have different weights, and consequently different values. To get rid of the confusion and 884 abolish these measures, and to lay the foundation of the trade upon the much surer basis of weight only, is the sole object of the Bill.
This is accomplished, we hope, by Clause 1, which reads:—
From and after the commencement of this Act, every contract, bargain, sale or dealing relating to corn shall, unless it is made or had by weight only and in terms of and by reference to the hundredweight of one hundred and twelve imperial standard pounds, be null and void.Your Lordships are well aware that in this country corn is generally sold by the measure of the quarter. The quarter contains eight bushels. The bushel is a measure of capacity, and contains exactly eight gallons of water. I lay some stress upon that, because I believe it is the only thing which can be described as in any degree exact or certain in this most uncertain trade. But while its measure of capacity always remains the same, its measure as weight varies not only according to the variety of the grain, but also according to the quality of the grain. A good sample of grain is heavier than a bad sample.In addition there is great variation in the bushel, owing to the number of customary measures which have been established in different parts of the country. In wheat alone there are five different sorts of quarters. These vary in weight from the imperial quarter of 40 lbs. to as high as the customary quarter of 588 lbs. But the measurement of wheat by the quarter is almost elementary compared to the multiplicity of the units into which it can be divided. In the East of England a common unit is the coomb, which is equal to four bushels. The bushels themselves vary, the more common ones being 60 lbs., 62 lbs., or 63 lbs. in wheat. In one part of Wales a customary bushel is as high as 80 lbs. In addition to the coomb and the bushel, there is the load, which is generally three bushels, though in some places it is five bushels, and if you happen to live in Oxfordshire or parts of Gloucestershire you may get as much as 40 bushels to your load.
The boll of wheat, which is used mainly in Scotland and parts of the North of England, has a great variety of meanings. In the North of England a boll of wheat equals 3 bushels, while in the South of Scotland it is exactly double that—6 bushels. In the rest of Scotland a boll of 885 wheat is equal to 4 bushels. In Preston you may, if you choose, buy your wheat by the windle, which is 220 lbs. Wales has the hobbit of 168 lbs., exactly one and a half ewts., and Ireland has the barrell of 280 lbs. which is exactly 2½ cwts. There has been in existence for a very long period the imperial measure of wheat, a quarter of 480 lbs., but it is generally disregarded, even by the Government. While in earlier Acts relating to corn the figure of a quarter of 480 lbs. was used—and it appears again in the Corn Production Act of 1917—in the Agriculture Act of last year (and I think also under some of the Regulations under D.O.R.A.) that quarter was not taken as the imperial quarter, but as one of 504 lbs. That is part of the story of wheat. I do not claim for a moment that it is the whole story. But those are the chief measures which I have been able to ascertain.
While wheat itself is sufficiently complicated, it is really quite simple compared with oats. Oats have no fewer than ten different quarters, varying from 304 lbs. to 528 lbs. in weight. It has far more than its fair share of bushels. The imperial quarter of oats is 312 lbs., but the Agriculture Act of last year fixed the quarter at 336 lbs. Then again, a boll of oats weighs 320 lbs. but a boll of oatmeal weighs 140 lbs., unless you are fortunate enough to live in Galway, where it weighs 280 lbs. Oats also has its own load, its own sac ft and its own hobbit, all different in weight from these measures when applied to wheat. I might lead your Lordships through the maze of rye and barley, beans and peas, not to speak of potatoes and turnips, all of which appear to live in little worlds of their own, passing their own laws, regulating their own sales, and differing, not only from each other but from themselves, in different parts of the country. It really is a chaotic condition of affairs, and the only approach to uniformity appears to be the regulation of the carrying trades of the country, the railway companies and shipping companies, who keep entirely to the cwt. in calculating weight.
This peculiar system of measures no doubt grew up when trading in corn was confined to very small areas, and as long as a man always bought and sold in his own market he grew accustomed to the measurements and there was not a great deal of trouble. But now dealings in corn 886 have become almost universal. Improved methods of communication have brought the ends of the country close together, and an intelligent farmer, quite properly, desires to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, and he looks at the quotations at different places to see where he can best place his order. Most of these quotations are given in cash, and unless he knows the actual market he does not know the weight of corn to which they refer. There is very little outside information to guide him. The fact does really act as a somewhat serious restraint upon trade.
I am glad to say that the whole of the agricultural bodies are in favour of the Bill. Resolutions supporting it have been passed by the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union (which desires an amendment to which I will refer later), the Central Landowners Association, the Surveyors' Institute, the Land Agents' Society, and the Agricultural Sea Trade Association. A special clause has been inserted at the instance of tithe owners. It is at least fifty years since some of these societies began petitioning Parliament in favour of uniformity in this matter. In the earlier days many of the agricultural societies demanded that the cental should be the standard of weight in place of the cwt., but that demand has been dropped, and they are now in favour of the Bill with the cwt. as the standard.
The important Report of the Committee, which is known as the Selborne Committee, contained a passage to the effect that they were in favour of a uniform standard of weight being laid down on which alone sales and purchases of agricultural produce, other than liquids and certain market-garden produce, should be legal.
§ LORD CLINTONI have not the Report with me. I know the paragraph to which the noble Earl refers. It suggests that the whole matter should be looked into by a Committee.
§ LORD CLINTONI am sorry I have not the Report with me now. All these agricultural bodies are anxious for this reform and for the standard we have proposed. The matter has been before the country on very many occasions. More than one hundred years ago, as early as 1758, a movement was made in the matter, and in 1795 a Committee reported in favour of selling corn by weight as being less liable to error. At intervals other Committees have reported in favour and societies have petitioned Parliament. Several private measures have also been introduced, but none has succeeded in becoming law.
I would draw your Lordships' particular attention to the fact that in the later measures the ground of objection was upon the standard of the cental as opposed to the cwt. As that is an important objection I desire to refer to it in a few sentences. That objection was made at a time when it was presumed that a. change from the avoirdupois to the metric system was imminent. That no longer can be said to be the case. The Committee presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh argued the matter closely and they reported—
Having given very full consideration to the subject we arc unable to recommend the compulsory adoption of the metric system in this country.The Committee on Decimal Coinage reported in the same way, and although I, in common with many others, hope that we may see this system adopted, it is evident at the moment that it is unlikely to be enforced. If it is not brought in for the whole country it is impossible to bring it in for one particular trade. It would cause great inconvenience. If it was brought in for the corn trade alone we should probably have different sets of scales. We must in ally case pay on the cwt. to the railway and shipping companies for freight charges, and it is certainly a great convenience to the home trade that the cwt. should remain in force.There are probably other objections from those who do not like the metric system. Although I am in favour of it can see very strong objections to its adoption at this moment. If one may take the result of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee as conclusive, we may regard the metric system as being out of the way for the present. In those circumstances the House of Commons have passed this Bill through all its stages, and it only 888 remains for your Lordships to put your seal of approval to a measure which has behind it very strong public opinion and is earnestly desired by the whole agricultural community. Those are the observations in favour of the measure.
Two or three objections to certain parts of the Bill have been circulated amongst your Lordships recently and I should like to deal with some of the more important of them. Statements have been made by the Federation of Corn Trades Associations and by the Incorporated National Association of British and Irish Millers. I think I need deal only with the latter, because it seems to include the whole substance of the former, with one or two items in addition. If your Lordships have that statement before you, you will see that they say in the third paragraph—
The present system of conducting the business in question with which all persons engaged in the industry are thoroughly familiar, does not give rise to any inconvenience calling for legislation of so drastic a character as is proposed by the Bill.The whole object of my statement to your Lordships is to show that it does cause a vast amount of inconvenience, which can be put right only by reforms such as we have suggested. They say in addition—There is no desire on the part of persons engaged in the milling and grain trades, nor, it is believed, on the part of farmers generally, for, any such change of system as is proposed.I cannot speak for the milling industry, but so far as farmers generally are concerned, I have resolutions from all their representative bodies, and they are certainly in favour of the change proposed. In the next paragraph they say—The Bill has been introduced without any consultation with the trades vitally affected.I think that statement is, if I may say so, inaccurate. Before this Bill was drafted, correspondence was going on with these trades. That was more than nine months ago. They have had ample opportunities since that time. They have been very ably represented during the passage of this Bill through another place, and through their representatives there they have secured the insertion of an Amendment to meet part of their objection. One Amendment in the Bill was actually drafted by themselves, and I confess that I find it rather difficult to accept the statement that they have not been consulted in the matter.889 If your Lordships will turn to page 2, you will see that they deal with an important matter, mainly in relation to flour. I think the second paragraph is important. They say—
The proposed unit of the hundredweight of 112 lbs. is an arbitary standard weight which does not rule on the Continent of Europe or in the countries from which grain is principally exported.That, of course, is a statement of fact. It does not rule on the Continent, and, so far as I know, there is no one standard under which grain is imported into this country. There is great variety of standards. Russian grain comes in by the quarter of either 492 lbs. or 496 lbs.; from the United States it comes by the quarter of 480 lbs.; and from Canada, I think, by the quarter of 496 lbs. From some other places it comes by the cwt., and, probably, from some places by the kilo. It was, therefore, a statement of fact that the unit of 112 lbs. is an arbitrary standard; but, at all events, we may say that at the moment there is no other standard of weight. They say further—The adoption of the hundredweight of 112 lbs. as the only legal unit, is inexpedient., since it Would complicate or render impracticable the more complete unification of weights and measures suitable for the import and export trade of the country,'That I imagine to be again a covert allusion to the metric system. They say that the adoption of the cwt. of 112 lbs. would render impracticable the more complete unification of weights and measures. That is not the view taken by many members of the Decimal Association. They approve this Bill, because they consider that it will be easier eventually to make the great change from the avoirdupois system to the decimal system, if the weights and measures in this country have already been reduced to uniformity. In the third paragraph they say—The milling trade of the United Kingdom would be seriously and unfairly handicapped and prejudiced by the passing of the Bill, for it would permit the flour of their foreign competitors to be sold in this country at the popular and customary unit of the sack of 280 lbs., divided into 140 lb. sacks or bags.That is a peculiarly unkind objection to take, because the Amendment embodying this permission to sell flour or corn in the sacks in which it was imported was, I believe, put in at the request, not of the Millers' Association, but of their associ- 890 ates, the Corn Dealers' Association. It was put in at their request, and I have a letter from them saying that it has been of vital importance to the Bill. Their further objection is that the import into the country of the 280 lb. sacks and the 140 lb. sacks will compel the home milling industry "to adopt the new and inconvenient unit proposed by the Bill." That is really rather a curious objection. The 280 lb. sack is exactly 2½ cwts. There seems to be no difficulty whatever in their selling it as such. The 140 lb. sack is exactly 1¼ cwts. There is no inconvenient unit there.
§ LORD CLINTONI think I heard the noble Earl say "double invoices." As a matter of fact, the whole of it is imported in terms of cwts., because every atom of flour and grain has to pay freight charges, which are all calculated by the cwt. I really do not believe that there is any inconvenience or recalculation required in that matter at all. With regard to the next objection, it is said—
If the Bill became law it would be impossible to continue to develop the trade in British milled flour for export to the Continent by the customary Continental unit of the kilo.That is a new objection, which I had not seen before it appeared here. It does not appear in the file of any correspondence which has taken place, and I think it must be somewhat in the nature of an afterthought.I have endeavoured, since yesterday, to obtain some information about the export flour trade. I learn from the Customs and Excise Department that the total export of flour and wheat meal during the year 1920 was 227,000 cwts. I should like your Lordships to observe that the amount is given in cwts. The objection here is that it would prevent their exporting in kilos, but it is quite clear that they have to make their returns in cwts., otherwise it would not appear in the Customs and Excise Department's Report. Further, the total export being 227,000 cwts., 177,000 cwts. of that goes to British possessions, who certainly do not deal in the kilo. Therefore, even at the worst, they are left with only 50,000 cwts., which is not a very large number of kilos, so that there cannot possibly be very much inconvenience.
891 I think there is a great deal of misconception about the whole of this matter in the foreign grain trade. Corn or flour can be put in any size bags or sacks. There is nothing whatever in this Bill to regulate the size of sacks. It merely has to be sold in terms of, or with reference to, the cwt., and after all, if they have to sell, in this small number of cwts., by the kilo or hundred kilos, the calculation has already been made by them, and I have no doubt they have a ready reckoner kept for the purpose. I believe that those are all the matters of importance with which 1 need deal, but, of course, I shall be prepared to deal with any other matters which may be raised. I do not see anything in the statements which have been put forward which provides sufficient reason why we should not support. the Second Reading of this Bill. Therefore, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Clinton.)
§ LORD EMMOTT had given Notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move—"That the Bill be read 2ª this day six months." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill proposes a very important change in our customs, and it proposes to do that, if I may venture to say so, after quite insufficient inquiry and consideration. I do not know—there has been very little time to look into the matter, and I have no connection with the trade in any way—whether there is any precedent in our legislation for making null and void the basis of contracts of immemorial usage. So far as this Bill would tend to simplify internal trade, and internal trade alone, I should be very loth to suggest interference with it. But after listening carefully to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, I do not see why the case which he makes out should not be met by very different measures from these. He might make the lb. avoirdupois the basis for all internal purposes in regard to home-grown produce.
§ But when we come to the immense foreign trade in cereals and agricultural products (dealt with in this Bill), which has grown up in this country during the last hundred years, we come, I think, to a very different set of circumstances. In regard to wheat, as is well-known, we import four-fifths of the wheat which we use in this country. As regards maize, we import the whole of that which is consumed 892 in this country, and this Bill would make void every contract in these commodities which is not expressed in terms of hundredweight. The import trade in wheat from America and Canada, as the noble Lord has said, is conducted in quarters of 480 lbs. a quarter of oats is 320 lbs., and a quarter of barley 400 lbs. From India a quarter of wheat is 492 lbs., a figure which would be very difficult to express in reference to cwts.
§ LORD CLINTONMay I remind the noble Lord that they have already been re-calculated for the trade by the carrying trade, the shipping and railway companies.
§ LORD EMMOTTI will deal with sonic cases in which they are not, presently. Even if they are re-calculated for this purpose, I do not think that that alone is sufficient to authorise this Bill. In regard to the East of Europe, I think the noble Lord referred to different quarters which formerly came from the three exporting ports in Russia—namely, Riga, Odessa and Petrograd. How long it will be before we receive grain again from Russia I am unable to say, but I am afraid that it will he a considerable time. The same thing applies to other ports of supply in the Eastern part of Europe.
Now, with regard to the export trade, I have not had time to look into the figures, but clearly our export trade in 1920 is not a very good criterion of what it is in ordinary times; and even if the amount exported then was not very large, that is no safe guide as to the future. Our export and re-export trade is a tremendous thing for this country, and anything which interferes unnecessarily with it is a matter about which this House ought to be very careful. A good deal of our export trade is, I understand, done in kilograms. In Liverpool even the internal trade is done, I am told, in centals, and a Bill of this kind ought not to ignore the tendency towards the greater use of the metric ton and the metric cental. If we are to have a change so drastic as this, those should be amongst the authorised measures. For many years people interested in the complaint which was made about our being not sufficiently energetic and active in pushing foreign trade, constantly stated that we were not ready enough to quote in foreign measures and weights, and in foreign money. This Bill would make it impossible 893 to quote at all, except in hundredweights, in the commodities mentioned. That is a very serious step to take at this time, without very serious consideration.
Furthermore, in the North of England there is a modern tendency. In Liverpool trade is done in the short ton of 20 centals, and port charges are made on that basis. Millers' machinery in the North of England is of an automatic character, and as regards the intake of wheat it is arranged for 100 lbs. and not the cwt. Liverpool uses the 100 lbs. for selling. I maintain that the cwt. of 112 lbs. is not the most convenient factor to adopt. It contains the rather inconvenient multiple of seven. I have no inclination to make a fetish of the decimal system. U we were starting the world over again I think we should be much wiser if we started with the duo-decimal. But that is impossible. The decimal system is in use all over the world, and therefore holds the field, and to stereotype the increased use of the inconvenient cwt. for foreign purposes would, I think, be a great mistake.
It was about three or four years ago that I was suitably punished for intervening in a decimal coinage discussion by being made Chairman of a Royal Commission to consider the matter. We reported by a majority, and I think that if our Decimal Coinage Commission had been composed of the old kind, of people uncommitted, we should have been unanimous. We reported against the change to a decimal system of coinage because either the £ or the penny must be sacrificed. We came to the conclusion that it was not worth while facing all the trouble and friction, and it would be very great, unless we had a nearer approach to a decimal system of weights and measures. A great many witnesses came before us in favour of a change of coinage. We examined them on the question whether a change to a decimal system of weights and measures was not more important than a change to a decimal coinage, and they nearly all of them said that that was so.
Now this Bill would operate against an approach to a decimal system of weights and measures, inasmuch as it would make contracts in metric tons or metric centals null and void and interfere with the modern system, which has grown up in the North of England, of using the cental of 100 lbs. avoirdupois. Another effect would be to increase the cost of conducting business—additional clerical labour, new contract 894 forms and books, an alteration in the size of bags—always a matter of considerable trouble—and an alteration in the automatic weighing and sacking apparatus.
This measure is opposed, as your Lordships arc aware from circulars that you have received, by the National Federation of Corn Associations, by the millers, and, I understand, by the bakers. I have therefore felt it my duty, although I do not know anything about the trade, to raise the matter here, but the exact course that I shall take will depend upon the course of the debate. I particularly desire to know what the Government advise on this matter. The views of the Ministry of Agriculture are already known to us, but I am sure your Lordships will be particularly interested to hear the views of the Board of Trade, if they can be expressed later on. The Bill itself shows that there is no particular hurry, for it; does not come into force till January 1, 1923. And unless one of two things is done I must confess I shall feel inclined to press opposition as much as I can. The first is that all imported cereals should be excluded from the scope of this measure. The present partial exclusion, in paragraph (ii) of Clause 1, is quite useless for the purpose, because I am told that a good deal of foreign wheat is moved twice, and the second move puts it under the provisions of this measure. Alternatively (and this is what I should really prefer) I should like to see delay, and sonic Committee set up to inquire whether this is a practical proposal or not.
I appeal to your Lordships, and I appeal to the Government, to see that a measure of this importance should not be hurried through without proper consideration. Undoubtedly, as regards foreign trade, it is retrograde. Though I know nothing about the corn trade, it is our custom in one trade of which I do know something to sell to the Continent of Europe in kilo-grammes, sometimes in foreign money; and, looking at it from the point of view of that trade, it seems to me a monstrous proposal that the contracts that we regularly make of that kind should be declared null and void by legislation. I cannot, therefore, conceive that this measure can be a good one for our foreign grain trade, and in those conditions I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months.")—(Lord Emmott.)
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)My Lords, speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, I may say that as agriculturists we support this Bill. We believe that it would be of very great advantage to the home producer and to those farmers and others who have dealings in grain in this country. The Ministry of Agriculture would naturally like to see the Bill pass into law, believing, as they do, that it would put an end to a great deal of confusion winch now exists in different markets, owing to the various meanings of the terms "quarter" and "bushel" which prevail throughout the country. I think all your Lordships are fully aware that there is a great deal of confusion arising from these different weights and measures.
Before I go any further I should like to say that it must be thoroughly understood that I am speaking only on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, and stating the agricultural view. I understand that all do not see eye to eye on this question, and anything I say should not go out as the advice from this bench as to what the Government think of the Bill. I understand. that it is not the intention to put on any Government tellers. It is merely a question for noble Lords to decide for themselves, as they usually do, and to vote as they think best on the merits of the Bill. I have no doubt they would do that in any circumstances.
But I may be permitted to say, speaking personally as an agriculturist, and on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, that I think that some of the fears which have been expressed by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, and also in the statements made by the millers and the corn dealers, are not of a very substantial nature. In both those statements, which have already been very ably dealt with by Lord Clinton, they express their view as to what will happen if this Bill passes, but I do not think they give any concrete examples of the dangers which they dread. In the first place, I do not think that those who object to the Bill have taken properly into consideration the Amendments which have been made in another place.
I had the advantage of listening to a deputation from the millers and grain dealers some tune ago, before this Bill was 896 discussed in Committee in the House of Commons. It was very plain to me, from what the deputation told me, that, as the Bill stood, it would to a very large extent hamper and interfere with what is, after all, the largest portion of the grain trade of this country, namely, the trade in imported grain and flour. Since then, during the passage of the Bill in another place, certain provisos have been inserted in Clause I which, I believe, to a large extent, if not entirely, got rid of those objections. The Bill now allows grain coming from foreign countries to be dealt with in any terms that are thought fit, and the Bill does not apply until the corn is moved from the warehouse or shed in which it was at first stalled; also it does not apply unless it is moved from its original bags. I consider that that goes a very long way towards meeting the objections of the corn trade.
I do not think that the other objections which are raised really are as strong as they are supposed to be, because the whole object of this Bill is that in the future all dealings in corn shall be by weight, and not by measure. That is a fact that we should get into our heads. If that is the case, I cannot help thinking that some of the objections raised by the millers and others should not really carry weight. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent millers and others who require flour or grain in certain quantities from buying it by weight. That is practically the whole alteration made by the Bill. I was amazed, when I inquired into this matter, to find to what extent corn is sold in this country by weight. Before I examined it I was under the impression that a large amount of corn and meal and flour was sold by the sack, that people bought a sack of barley meal and so many sacks of wheat or oats; and that they believed that so many sacks went to the quarter and took no further trouble about it, but accepted the sacks or sent them to the corn merchant or the miller. I was astounded to learn that practically every sack of corn and every sack of flour is weighed in this country.
It seems, therefore, that the objections which are raised do not carry real weight, because even at the present moment people do not accept sacks of corn or flour but take every precaution to weigh them and find out how many lbs. of flour or oats or wheat they are purchasing. So far as I have gone into tile matter, I 897 consider that this Bill in no way interferes with the trade in foreign corn to this country right up to the time it is put into the werehouses. 'The noble Lord who moved Hut rejection of this Bill acknowledged, I think, that there were ten different ways of selling corn (there are a great many more, I believe) in common use in one port— Liverpool. Under the Bill the merchant will be allowed to trade in foreign corn in the old way until it is put into the warehouse in England, and to carry on all these old customs.
The other objection I sometimes hear is that it will mean that merchants and dealers in foreign corn will have to make a great many difficult calculations. They have to make a great many difficult calculations now, and to use comparative tables of the different weights and measures. I should have thought it would not have been very difficult for them to get out fresh comparative tables of weights and measures if it was found necessary to do so. What should weigh with your Lordships to a large extent is this. By their education probably, and the nature of their trade, farmers are not as good arithmeticians and calculators as these merchants, and, moreover, they- have not the same clerical staff to which they can refer. Surely, it is not unfair to ask, on behalf of those men, that they should have a standard method of selling corn and meal by the cwt., which they all understand, and should not be called upon to make these difficult calculations. On those grounds, believing that the objections to the Bill are not of a really substantial character, and realising the large support it is receiving among the farming and agricultural community of the country, I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
§ LORD NUNBURNHOLMEMy Lords, I had no intention of speaking when I came down to the House, but I feel that I must say a few words, after listening to the lengthy speech of the noble Earl who has just spoken for the landed interest rather than for the trade. We have not yet heard the Board of Trade view of this Bill. If you pass it into law you are going to upset the whole of the foreign corn trade in this country. Every ship which discharges a cargo of grain into a warehouse, the books of which are made up with the usual customary weights and measures, will now have to deliver out of the ware- 898 house on quite different weights. It is going to alter all the sworn weighman's weights and measures, and for the sake of perhaps 20 per cent. of the inland trade of the country you arc going to upset, say, 80 per cent. of the foreign trade. I ask your Lordships to hesitate, to consider whether it is really worth while bringing in this Bill which, after all, is but a half-measure. If a Bill is necessary at all we had better go straight to the metric system.
§ LORD STRACHIEMy Lords, I understand the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture here to say that in blessing the Bill he was speaking on behalf of his Department only, and not on behalf of the Government. He will correct me if I am wrong. If I ant right, then I would ask the noble Earl who is leading the House why the Government changed their mind upon this matter? We are very accustomed in these clays to the Government continually changing their mind, and it would seem that they have done so in this case. When this Bill was before the House of Commons on Second Reading, the Minister for Agriculture said—
This is not a Government Bill, hot so far as the Government are concerned they will recommend the Rouse to give a Second Reading to the Bill.There has been an entire change of front. The Government now conic down and take the opposite view; and they are divided upon the matter. They do not, as a Government, ask this House to pass a Bill for which agriculturists have asked for many years, and which would get rid of a troublesome feature of their trade. The House of Commons thought it right to give a Second Reading to the Bill, and it was considered on its merits.It is rather interesting to notice that when referring to the merits of the Bill generally the Minister of Agriculture said: I certainly think there is a strong case for legislation. The position is absolutely chaotic." For some reason or other the Government have changed their mind in regard to the position being "absolutely chaotic." The House of Commons apparently thought that the passing of the Bill would be for the benefit of trade, because on Third Reading only eighteen Members could be found to vote against the Bill. The Bill had been amended—reasonably amended. Had there been strong objections there certainly would have been more than eighteen Members 899 going into the Lobby against it on Third Reading. Therefore, I hope we shall have some stronger reason than has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, that this Rill should not have a Second Reading. If it is necessary to amend it at a later stage, that can be done.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords, I confess that I think the least interesting point is the personal and political point to which my noble friend has alluded. My noble friend beside me said he was speaking for the Department of Agriculture, and that as a Government we did not propose to advise your Lordships in either direction, but he made a strong appeal not merely that the Bill should have a Second Reading but that it should pass into law. The Board of Trade is afraid that the Bill may be more far-reaching in its character and, while conferring a benefit upon agriculture, may cause a serious impediment to our trade as a whole. It so happens that for four years I have been connected with the problems of bread-stuffs and milling, our flour supplies and bread distribution, and I beg your Lordships to allow me to say in a word or two why I hope that this Bill will not pass until it has received careful consideration at your Lordships' hands. The Government must really not be blamed for—
§ LORD STRACHIEChanging their mind?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDEven for changing their mind. I do not suppose that Lord Strachie does not change his mind. If so, he must have a very clear and strong conscience. I confess I should be sorry to be a member of a Government which was too proud to admit that it had changed its mind. I will explain in a moment how it has come about that this subject was not sufficiently probed during the earlier stages of its career. I set out by admitting anomalies. I know that these cereals and cereal products are sold in every kind of denomination, and I admit the anomalies. But who suffers by them? The farmers? No. We all know of two or three cases where farmers are quoted as having thought they sold in a. bushel or boll or whatever it be, and found that they were actually selling in another measure of a smaller denomination. That is not so in one thousandth of one per cent. of the cases of sales. My noble friend Lord 900 Clinton knows the farmer of England and of Scotland, and I challenge contradiction when T say that in not one thousandth of one per cent of transactions in t his country can the farmer say that he is swindled or cheated because he does not appreciate the denomination in which he is selling or buying corn.
The anomalies exist, and confusion exists, but it is not local confusion. It is not confusion in the market where the man sells, and where the merchant buys. It would be confusion if a man growing oats in the Shetland Isles in one denomination tried to sell them in the denomination which prevails in Cornwall. But that is not how the transactions are carried out. I therefore state emphatically that it is an exaggeration to try and impress upon your Lordships that this Bill is necessary to protect downtrodden and ignorant farmers. Moreover, the man who cannot sell in bushels would probably be quite as easily cheated if he tried to sell in cwts. I, therefore, think that the inconvenience—the vast inconvenience, as Lord Clinton called it—only exists on paper, and does not exist in point of fact. In any case the inconvenience and confusion which may exist are not local in character, and therefore do not touch the individual.
Lord Clinton commented rather severely on the third paragraph in this statement before your Lordships, on the ground that the Bill had gone a long way without the millers and federations of corn trades making any objection. I am afraid that is substantially true. But let me remind your Lordships that this Bill was not introduced very long ago in the House of Commons. Up to March 31 last, every miller in this country was a servant of the Government. He had to buy his wheat from the Government, through Government agents. He had to mill it according to the directions laid down by the Government, and he had to sell it according to the prices and schedules given to him week by week. His finance was controlled; his standard profit was allowed to him; his surplus was taken by the Government. That had been going on for four years. Exactly the same thing applied to the corn trade—a powerful and efficient organisation. For four years it had been the agency of the Government. It was told where to buy, how to buy, what to buy, and where to sell. Neither of these great bodies, both of them essential to the 901 livelihood of this country, has been a free agent during the last four years. That was not their fault. It was necessary, in order to ensure the food supply of the country, to control both of these two trades under the most rigid conditions.
What was the natural result 1 At the moment when this Bill was being projected in the House of Commons these two trades, to whom freedom was being gradually restored, had to devote every minute of their time to studying the terrific problems by which they were faced on having to resume the burden and responsibilities of private enterprise at a moment when the Exchange was fluctuating 6, 8 and even 10 points in a day, and when the price of wheat varied in 24 hours more than its normal variation during three months before Its, war. That was the condition in which these two trades found themselves on March 31, when this Bill was being projected. Can your 'Lordships blame them that they did not there and then appreciate how great a danger this was to their method of business, and that it should only have been at this late stage that they should appeal to this House for re-consideration of the matter. It does not lie in our mouths to scold or blame two great industries in this country because they come to your Lordships' House, and not to the House of Commons, to make an appeal. That, I hope, in the minds of your Lordships, will he a sufficient excuse, and will answer the observations of my noble friend, Lord Clinton, that these two industries did not make their appeal to Parliament in adequate time.
§ LORD CLINTONMay I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? That was not my complaint. My complaint against them was that they said they had not been consulted.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDCertain people were consulted, but I can assure my noble friend that it was I myself who first asked some of these people what they thought about the Bill, and they told me that they did not know it had even been presented to Parliament. There are very important Bills awaiting the consideration of your Lordships, and I do not propose to detain you more than a moment or two. I wish to point out that this does not affect only the milling industry and the corn industry. Least of all does it affect the farmers. The farmers of this country are 902 producers of only 12 per cent., 13 percent., or 14 per cent. of our wheat consumption, and the remaining 88 per cent., I therefore, collies into t his country, and is dealt with as between the importers or shippers and the millers. The farmer here is not a party to those transactions.
I would emphasise that there is another large body, to which practically no reference has been made, and that is the body composed of bakers. Why is the baker not mentioned I It is true he is a very un-vocal party That is my experience of the baker. But your Lordships will remember that a baker has built up his business upon the existing system of weights and measures, and if von ask a baker what plant he has, he says: "I have a one sack, or a two sack, or a three sack plant." That is a unit of 280 lbs. Lord Clinton says that does not matter, and that there is no difficulty in letting the wheat be sold to him in 112 lbs. But that means a. double invoice.
My noble friend, Lord Ancaster, says, "They have to make elaborate calculations now. Does it matter that they should have to make more?" My Lords, this is a Bill in restraint of trade. These people want to trade in bushels, or in quarters, or kilos, or whatever be the denomination that they have hitherto traded in. Why should they not be allowed to do so? This is going to add another invoice to a system which is already utterly unscientific, and to say that of it is, in itself, to condemn the Bill. It is well known that the London and North Western Railway would save, on a calculation which was made before the war, £150,000 a year if they could keep their accounts on the metric system. Personally, I ant not a strong advocate of the metric system, or at all events have not taken much trouble to support it, but I am against introducing an utterly unscientific denomination if it is going to bar the way to a measure which is scientific' in its character.
Why should not the merchant in Liverpool be able to buy from a jobber in Liverpool, wheat from Chicago in bushels? That is what they do to-day. Why should not a man on the Baltic Exchange in London be allowed to buy from a shipper in Madras, or Karachi, or Bombay, Indian wheat in a unit of 2,000 lbs? That is what they do every day. If this Bill wore passed those things would be illegal. Any transaction in this country must be done in units of 112 lbs.
§ LORD CLINTONOnly when the corn is in this country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI am dealing with a transaction that is not done in this country, and I think I am quite correct. It is the same point that has been raised by Lord Emmott.
§ LORD EMMOTTI rather think the Bill as drafted is intended to make "future" dealings impossible.
§ LORD CLINTONWe are informed that the Bill does not affect "futures" at all.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI do not want to take up your Lordships' time in dealing with a question of construction, but those who deal in "futures" think it will make that class of tranaction impossible, and while it may be considered a wicked thing to deal in "futures," my experience is that "futures" steady the market, and, as such, are by no means without their use.
Lord Clinton referred to the Committee presided over by Lord Selborne. That Committee, as many of your Lordships will remember, included Lord Bledisloe, Sir Ailwyn Fellows, Sir Daniel Hall, Mr. Prothero (now a member of your Lordships' House) and Mr. Strutt, and it went into the question with the greatest care. They recognised anomalies, they recorded anomalies, and they condemned anomalies; but they suggested that the question should be made the subject of special inquiry. They said it should be examined by representatives of every profession, every trade, and every industry concerned, and that they should correlate the requirements of the country as a whole. That I think is sound advice. I do not know whether Lord Selborne still takes that view, but I am convinced it is the proper course to adopt, and if Lord Emmoott goes to a Division I shall certainly feel it my duty to support him. If, on the other hand, the promoters of the Bill would consent to refer it to a Select Committee—I should say of both Houses, though I do not want to prejudge opinion—I should be quite prepared to support the Second Reading. But I am perfectly convinced that it should not proceed without these three large industries being able to make careful and considered representations to your Lordships.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERMy Lords, no one could have had a less pre-determined view on this measure Than I had. I was very anxious to know what it was that the Bill desired to effect and what were the arguments for and against it. For that purpose I have done my best to attend to what has been said, though I had the misfortune not to hear the speech of the noble Lord who introduced it. I have always been strongly in favour of some alteration of our system of weights and measures. There is no doubt that they are most clumsy, and, although they are familiar to all people engaged in our inland trade, it would certainly greatly simplify other transactions and tend to the expedition of commerce if they could be changed. It does not follow front that that this Bill ought to be accepted.
I listened with interest to the different views that are held by different Government Departments on this measure. Apparently on this Bill the Coalition Government is unable to coalesce, and while the Ministry of Agriculture is taking one view the Board of Trade takes another, and both of them hold strong views, strenuously urged. What is to be done in such circumstances? I find myself absolutely bewildered, and still more bewildered because I cannot understand the construction which the noble Earl places upon it. He suggests that the Bill is intended to make void transactions here on the Baltic Exchange for the purchase, for example, of Russian corn. I say "for example" as I imagine it will be a long time before such contracts are entered into. I read the Bill as providing nothing of the kind. It provides that contracts relating to the bargain, sale, or dealing in corn shall be null and void unless it is made in reference to the cwt. of standard quantity. Then there is the second proviso to the effect that it does not apply to corn which at the date of the contract was not within the United Kingdom (that certainly would be Russian corn) or to corn that has been imported into the United Kingdom so long as it is in the warehouse.
The uneasiness expressed by the noble Lord as to the effect of the Bill on our import trade is hardly justified by the terms of the measure itself. The same thing I feel about the statement of Lord Emmott, to whose views on this matter I need not say I listened with the greatest possible respect, knowing how thoroughly 905 familiar he is with all business matters. But why should this interfere with our import trade? That is what I want to know. I am told that it is going to affect 70 per cent, of the import trade. Why? As I understand the Bill the whole of our import trade is left clean out of it altogether, and it only relates to our inland trade. All that the Bill does is to impose, for a short time, a certain amount of inconvenience upon people who are engaged at home in the buying and selling of domestic corn, and I find it a little difficult to see how great national disasters are going to How from such a result as that.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERI think it does. It applies to no corn that is imported into this country while it remains in the warehouse, store or shed, where it has been first stored on importation. That is what. I mean by saving that it applies only to domestic transactions at home. It is perfectly true that you may have corn that Inv. been imported and then sold here, and then, of course, the Bill will apply. But the point is; that it affects, as I understand it—I may be quite wrong, or the noble Earl may be quite wrong—nothing except contracts made at home for the sale and purchase of corn and wheat and other commodities that arc here at home and passed out of the warehouses and sheds into which they were originally consigned. What is there in that to interfere with our imports or to prevent the importation of what we all desire—namely, large quantities of wheat and corn? I confess I cannot understand it, and on the whole the noble Lord who introduced the Bill has, I think, made out his case.
§ LORD LAMBOURNEMy Lords, if the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken is puzzled at the line taken by the Government ho will not be surprised that I am even still more puzzled. The Government are playing the part of Jekyll and Hyde. First we have Lord Ancaster speaking for the Ministry of Agriculture, which I always thought formed a part of the Government. He blesses the Bill, and says there never was such a Bi'l introduced and that it will be of the greatest possible use. I thoroughly agree with him. Then we have Lord Crawford, who says it is one of the worst Bills he has ever seen, and, 906 speaking for the Board of Trade (which I thought was also a portion of the Government) says it is not called for and would be most mischievous.
An unfortunate farmer, like myself, does not know which way the Government are going to vote, or what they are going to do. Is one portion of the Treasury Bench going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, and another portion against it? As regards Lord Crawford's remarks do not think I misquote him— he said that. except in individual cases, it did not at the present time inflict much hardship. All I know is that I have received innumerable letters from farmers in the Eastern counties begging me to support the Second Reading, if your Lordships proceed to a Division. Further, the list of societies which was quoted by Lord Clinton is a fairly comprehensive one which may be taken to represent the farming interests very largely. Every one of them is in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that, if this question comes to a Division, the majority of the Government may be induced to break away from the Board of Trade on this occasion.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, I have only a. very few words to add to what has been so well said by my noble friend opposite. I think the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has entirely disposed of the argument that this Bill will interfere with the import trade. I merely wish most respectfully, but most definitely, to disagree with Lord Crawford when he says that the present state of affairs inflicts only very small inconvenience on the agricultural industry. That is riot the opinion of the organisations which represent agriculture. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was proved before the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman, that the present condition: of these corn measures is simply chaotic, and, although this is not a final and complete remedy, it is, at all events, a very long step in advance. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a minute. Many years ago I used to grow eight or ten thousand bushels of corn a year and ship it to England. I shall certainly support this Bill, because I do not remember any of this corn being bought by the bag or the bushel. When 907 it got to London it was always bought by the cwt.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.