Lords Sitting of 7 May 1924

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

NEATH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I (beg to move that Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with with respect to a Petition of the Briton Ferry Works. If the Standing Order is dispensed with it will authorise the deposit of a late Petition. I have been in communication with the promoters and also the opponents of the Bill. The promoters have no objection to this late Petition being deposited and I, therefore, ask your Lordships to dispense with the Standing Order.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with with respect to a Petition of the Briton Ferry Works.—(The Earl of Donoughmore).
On Question, Motion agreed to, and leave given to present the Petition accordingly.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a
STAFFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTER- SHIRE CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
QUEEN'S FERRY BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MALVERN HILLS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANS-JORDANIA.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Emir Abdullah's administration in Trans-Jordania is tyrannical, extravagant, inefficient and generally unpopular; and that the High Commissioner for Palestine has consistently refrained from exercising his powers to bring about an improved state of affairs; and whether it is the policy of the Government to endeavour to reconcile the people of Palestine to Zionist tyranny by establishing a worse tyranny in Trans-Jordania?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when, two years ago, I ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to the deplorable condition of Trans-Jordania under the British Mandate I was told by the noble Duke who then represented the Colonial Office in your Lordships' House that the Emir Abdullah had carried out his task in a. satisfactory manner. I do not know what line will be taken this evening by the noble Lord the present Under-Secretary of State, but I very much doubt whether he will repeat that statement, not because there has been any material change in the situation during the last two years but because the Government have at last been compelled to face the facts, which are, briefly, that Abdullah's interest in the administration is limited to the squeezing of as much money as possible out of the taxpayers for his own personal use and that he is so unpopular and impotent that he can only be maintained in nominal power by British armed forces.
As regards the second part of the Question, this is not intended as a personal attack on Sir Herbert Samuel. I have no reason to suppose that Sir Herbert has deviated in any way from the policy laid down for him, whatever that may be. The fact remains, however, that he has missed numerous opportunities of instituting remedial measures. Such measures might have included a stricter control over the finances, steps to repair and complete the Turkish roads, which have been allowed to decay, and also the giving of the people some voice in the government. In Turkish times Elections were held regularly. In 1920 I held a General Election in the northern area and acted as returning officer, so I know that there would be no
286
difficulty about that. As regards the third part of the Question, I do not suggest that that is the explicit policy of the Government but there can be little doubt that the sight of a prosperous and contented Trans-Jordania would increase the discontent in Palestine, or that if Trans-Jordania had had a responsible Government it could not have been included in the Rutenberg concession. I beg to ask the Question.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I have, I think, some cause to complain of the form in which the noble Lord's Question is drawn up. It is couched in rather violent language. It contains a good deal about tyranny, extravagance, and so forth, and in the last part of it the noble Lord insinuates —it is an insinuation rather than a direct statement—that there is what he calls a "Zionist tyranny" in Palestine. Thus, the noble Lord introduces an insinuation of this kind into a Question purporting to deal with quite a different subject. I wish to state, quite clearly, that this insinuation is altogether unfounded. There is no Zionist tyranny in Palestine, and no tyranny of any kind. There is a British Administration, presided over by a British statesman of very distinguished record and controlled by a British Secretary of State. These things are about as far removed from tyranny as anything can be.
I do not propose to go over the whole question of the merits of our policy in Palestine. That has frequently been discussed in your Lordships' House. The policy has been reaffirmed by three consecutive British Governments. It is impossible to go back on that. Papers have been laid before the House at fairly frequent intervals showing the lines on which the policy is being carried out in practice. I should like to quote from one of them. It is a Paper (Cmd. 1989) laid before Parliament in November, 1923: that is to say, while the late Government were still in office. It contains a Despatch from the late Secretary of State to the High Commissioner, dated October 4, 1923. In this Despatch the noble Duke wrote as follows:—
"It has been the constant endeavour of His Majesty's Government and of yourself. as High Commissioner, so to conduct the administration of Palestine as to do equal justice to the interests of both parties concerned."

287
Later on, in the same Despatch, the noble Duke spoke of the
"desire and intention of His Majesty's Government to deal with absolute impartiality between the different communities of Palestine and to fulfil to the letter the obligations—both to Arab and Jew—to which their predecessors publicly committed themselves."
That indicates the spirit which the late Government brought to their task in Palestine. It is one with which the present Government associate themselves unreservedly. To describe as a tyranny an Administration conducted in this spirit is, I venture to say, to use language which is not in accordance with the facts.
I now turn to Trans-Jordan. I think that your Lordships know generally what the position is. During the war we gave an undertaking to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within certain geographical limits. I know I am on controversial ground. There has been dispute as to what those limits included. But about Trans-Jordan, at any rate, there is no dispute. It admittedly falls within the limits to which the wartime undertaking applies. That is a governing consideration as affecting the political status of Trans-Jordan and the character of our relations with that country. We have to discharge our mandatory functions in a manner not inconsistent with our promises. What has happened is that an Administration under the Emir Abdullah was set up in 1921 and has been functioning over since. We have assisted it with money and advice; but have not exercised or attempted to exercise anything in the nature of direct control.
I am not prepared to say that the present state of affairs in the country can be regarded with unmixed satisfaction or that there is no room for improvement. There has undoubtedly been discontent with the methods of administration. In September last, there was an outbreak of disorder when the Chief of the Adwan tribe induced certain other tribes to join him in armed resistance to the Emir's authority. It was considered necessary to support the Emir's Government, and the rising was put down and order restored in a very short time. It must be remembered, on the other hand—and the noble Lord naturally never made any reference to these factors—that two very definite
288
advantages have accrued from the establishment of the Emir's Administration. In the first place, raids from Trans-Jordan into Palestine have practically ceased. Formerly there was constant danger of incursions by Bedouin tribes, and on one occasion a raid of very serious proportions necessitated the employment of considerable police and military forces. From the date of the establishment of the Arab Government no serious raids have occurred. In other words, Palestine has been immune from disturbance on her Eastern frontier, and, as a consequence, heavy reductions have been effected in British military expenditure in that country. The second advantage is that the safety of the Trans-Desert Air Route, which starts from Amman, the capital of Trans-Jordan, has been effectively maintained. The mail service by this route, which is a fortnightly one, has been carried on without a hitch for more than two and a half years. It brings London within ten days of Baghdad.
Your Lordships will gather from what I have said that I do not regard the situation as free from anxiety or as incapable of improvement. But I see nothing in it to justify the kind of language used by the noble Lord. It must be remembered that the Trans-Jordan Administration is necessarily in the experimental stage. It has had to buy its own experience. If it has made mistakes, and if its actions have not always conformed exactly with what we here look upon as the true principles of government, I do not know that we need be very much astonished or dismayed. We are now engaged in considering the whole question of the direction in which improvement may be effected. We hope very shortly to enter into friendly discussion with the Emir on the subject. I cannot say more for the present. The House may rest assured that we are fully alive to our obligations in regard to territories for which we, are responsible under the Mandate, and that we shall do our utmost to place matters on as satisfactory a footing as possible.

INDUSTRIAL COURTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the Government are still of the opinion that their first-diagnosis of this Bill is correct and that its effect, if it is passed, will be to increase the number of strikes instead of diminishing them. The noble Lord thinks otherwise, and if the House chooses to pass the measure they will, of course, do so. I have only to add that, the Government holding this view, I cannot hold out much hope that there will be any facilities for its further passage into law.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DOXOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of 9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 69.
1. From and after the passing of this Act the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, Part II, shall be amended by the insertion of the following subsections at the end of Section four of that Act, viz.:—
" 4.—(6) Where the Minister has referred a trade dispute as provided by subsection (1) of this section to a Court of Inquiry, it shall be unlawful, prior to and during that inquiry and prior to the report thereon to the Minister, for any employer to declare or cause a lockout or for any workman to go on strike on account of such dispute: Provided that except where both parties to the dispute agree to an extension of time, nothing in this Act shall be held to restrain any employer from declaring a lock-out or any workman from going on strike after thirty days from the date of the reference of a trade dispute to a Court of Inquiry by the Minister.
"4.—(7) Any employer declaring or causing a lock-out contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be liable to a fine of not less than twenty pounds nor more than two hundred pounds for each day or part of a day that such lock-out exists, and any workman who goes on strike contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be liable to a fine of not less than two pounds nor more than ten pounds for each day or part of a day that such workman is on strike.
"4.—(8) Any person who incites, encourages or aids in any manner any employer to declare or continue a lockout or any workman to go or continue on strike contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not less than ten pounds nor more than two hundred pounds.
"4.—(9) The procedure of enforcing penalties imposed or authorised to be imposed by this Act shall he in manner
290
prescribed by Sections sixty-one, sixty-three and sixty-seven of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887."
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I have one question to ask the noble Lord with regard to the new subsection (8) which provides that any person who incites, encourages or aids in any manner to declare or continue a lock-out or strike shall be liable to special penalties. I have an open mind on the matter, but I would ask him to give us more reasons for this provision than we have had up to the present. I think it is taken from the Canadian Act, on which the Bill is founded. The first part is very simple. Any person who takes part in any strike before the period named has elapsed is liable to a penalty. There can be no doubt about the question as to whether a particular person has taken such a part, but this subsection is more complicated and, I think, more dangerous because it provides a special penalty for any person who incites, encourages or aids any one to declare a strike or lock-out. It will raise very difficult legal questions, and instead of strengthening the Bill this particular provision will, I think, make it much more difficult to work. How is any one to prove that a particular person has encouraged others to take part in a strike? He must have done it by speeches, and that will involve the pernicious system of the police attending meetings and taking down speeches. If he does it in any other way then it will be much more difficult to prove. I am putting this point as a supporter of the Bill, not as a critic, and I would ask the noble Lord to give us some additional reasons why he has included this particular subsection in his Bill.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the noble Earl on this point. This clause is taken verbatim from the Canadian Act; I think it is Section 60. It is really directed against the maintenance or support of a strike or lock-out by other people, or, indeed, a sympathetic strike. The Canadian Act has worked in two ways. Trade union secretaries and leaders, as moderate men, have been able to tell their followers that if they desired to strike then they, the leaders, would not endorse their action, because the result under this section would be that if the penalties were enforced they would suffer far more than

291
those who wore following them. In another way it has prevented outside organisations coming in and maintaining a strike. There was an interesting case in which a local mining union in Nova Scotia was on strike and where the United Mine Workers of America, an alien union, came in and sent down an agent to the place who gave tickets for food and goods only to those men who were in their union. The employers prosecuted the leader of the alien union, or the agent whom they had established in that place. He was convicted and fined. An appeal was made by the alien union but the conviction was upheld by six Judges, and the local union were quite satisfied with the result
There is no doubt that the penalties would not be enforced against a large number of people. It is not done in any country where they exist, but inquiries that have been made show that a judicious enforcement has often been found to be valuable. In Australia, although the penalties are general, they have not been often enforced because the fact that a reasonable time has to be given by law has caused men to give that time —and that is the object of this Bill. The same thing has occurred in Canada. I hope that this explanation will answer the question which the noble Earl has raised, and will show him the reason for the inclusion of this subsection.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to require, returns.
1.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may, in any year by notice served on the occupier of any agricultural land in England or Wales or the person having the management of any such land, require
292
him to make within such time as is specified in the notice, and in such form and to such person as the Minister may prescribe by regulations made under this Act, a return in writing for that year with respect to the cultivation of the land, or the crops or live stock thereon, or the persons employed on the land, and, if the occupier is also the owner of the land, that fact shall be stated in the return.
(2) No individual return or part of a return made under this Act shall be used, published or disclosed, except for the purposes of the preparation and publication by the Minister of agricultural statistics or of a prosecution under this Act.
(3) (a) Any person who refuses, or without lawful excuse, neglects to make a return required under this Act to be made by him shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(b) If a return made under this Act is untrue in any material particular, the person by whom the return was made shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, unless he proves that he made the return innocently and without negligence.
(4) Any person who uses, publishes, or discloses contrary to the provisions of this Act any individual return or part of a return shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(5) Any notice under this Act may be served on the person to whom it is addressed either personally or by post, and, in the case of a notice to an occupier, may be addressed to "the occupier" without naming him.
(6) The expression "agricultural land" includes land used as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or osier land, or woodland, or for a market garden or nursery ground.
(7) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat praying that the regulation may be annulled His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "such time as is specified in," and insert "twenty-eight days of the receipt of." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to preserve to your Lordships' House the power of making Regulations under this Bill. Unless the Amendment is accepted the Department will be able to say that the Returns must be made within three or four days, or ten or twelve days, or whatever time they think right. I have always

293
endeavoured to prevent the privileges of Parliament being handed over to the Departments, and I have always held that the proper course is for Parliament to determine, in passing Bills of this sort, what the provisions of the law should be. I am not particularly wedded to twenty-eight days, and if the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill thinks that the period should be different, I shall be quite prepared to accept an alteration, but I hope that the period may not be less than twenty-eight days. Noble Lords will remember that the voluntary Returns were generally sent in somewhere about the end of June. At that time farmers are very busy with the hay harvest and find it a little difficult, at a few moments' notice, to collect all these particulars. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consent to put in some particular date, allowing at least twenty-eight days in which to furnish the required information.
Before I sit down I should like to call your Lordships' attention to that which took place last year when this Hill was before this House. The Second Heading-was moved on May I by my noble friend the Earl of Ancaster, whose statement ran to about four lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT. No other noble Lord said anything at all, and the Second Heading was passed without any criticism. My noble friend—I am sure quite unwittingly—made a mistake in the few words which he did say. He said that this Bill was substantially the same as Section 15 of the Corn Production Act, 1917. But it is not. It contains three provisions which did not find a place in the Corn Production Act, 1017. I shall move some Amendments later on, the effect of which will be to bring the Bill into line with that Act. I have the section here, but I presume that it is not necessary to read it.
I then find that on the Committee stage only one noble Lord said anything which had anything to do with the Bill. Lord Clinton made some remarks, and my noble friend Lord Ancaster said that the point which he raised was answered by subsection (7) of Clause 1. I venture very humbly to differ once more from my noble friend. I hold that subsection (7) of Clause 1 is a perfectly illusory provision, and might as well be left out. In the House of Commons it, is absolutely useless I to try to find out whether anything is lying
294
upon the Table. I do not know how many noble Lords can tell me how we find out in this House. It took me a good many years to discover the process in the House of Commons, and I do not believe there are at this moment ten Members of that House who know it. In this House, no doubt, most noble Lords know what to do, but none of those whom I have asked— perhaps I have been unfortunate—could tell me how to find out what is lying upon the Table. Then the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, made certain remarks which merely went to show that the Bill was being hurried through unnecessarily. I venture to agree with him. On the Third Beading nobody said anything at all. This shows that, by an accident which often happens in the other House, though I was not aware that it so often happened here, the Hill passed through without your Lordships really knowing what it contained. I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept my Amendment, or something like it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("such time us is specified in") and insert ("twenty-eight days of the receipt of").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): I will not follow the noble Lord into the question of the manner in which documents are laid upon the Table of this House. Notice is given from time to time which provides us with that information. As regards the noble Lord's Amendment, I am not sure that I appreciate his objection. I thought that he desired that when this Bill became an Act of Parliament the terms of the notice should be found in it; that is to say, he wanted it in the Act and not in the Regulations. We are at one upon that point, because, as the Bill stands, it will be in the Act, the statutory Regulation being as specified in the notice. The noble Lord requires a specific time, but I do not think this will be so convenient as the provision contained in the Bill at present. This is not a matter of very-great moment one way or the other, but I suggest that what the noble Lord really wants is that some minimum time should be given by Statute. I suggest, if the noble Lord is willing to accept them, that the words should be: "Within such time, not being less than fourteen days, as is.specified in the notice."
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is not enough.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think it is a matter of great importance, but the form in which I suggest the Amendment is, I think, the right form, because it gives what the noble Lord really wants, which is a minimum period. Would the noble Lord accept twenty-one days?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment in the form which the noble Lord suggests—namely, that there should be not less than a certain number of days' notice; but I think the number ought to be twenty-eight.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to controvert the noble Lord upon a point of this kind. The advisers of the Ministry think that fourteen days is the right period; the noble Lord suggested twenty-eight days; and I am willing to accept twenty-one days—that seems a fair arrangement.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am not quite cognisant of the procedure of the House. Might I withdraw my Amendment in order to move it in another form—namely, the insertion of the words, "not being less than twenty-eight days" after "such time"?
LORD PARMOOR: I have already stated that I think that is the right form in which the Amendment should be moved, and that I am willing to accept "not less than twenty-one days."
On Question, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10. after ("time") insert ("not being less than 28 days").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUOCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUOCLEUCH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "with respect to the cultivation" and insert "of the acreage." The noble Duke said: My Amendment is somewhat on the same lines and is to define the Bill more distinctly than docs its present form. At the present time a Return may be asked for in respect to the cultivation of the land or the crops or live stock thereon. I propose to leave out the words with
296
respect to the cultivation of the land, and to insert in their place the words "of the acreage." It still leaves a Return to be made of the crops or live stock, and so forth. I think it is a practical Amendment and renders the Bill less objectionable. There is a great fear amongst many farmers that the present Return will give far too great power to the Department and that farmers may be pestered with all sorts of questions which may or may not be useful.
It appears to me, and I hope your Lordships will share the view, that if my Amendment is carried, the Department will be able to get all the information they really require, and that if they want further information they will probably obtain it voluntarily as they do at the present time. It is a different matter setting out answers to questions when the answers are voluntary from what it is when the answers have to be made compulsorily, subject to a penalty. We are all aware how, for many years, these questions have been a great nuisance and a great interference with business. Probably they are useful in one respect—they require a large number of clerks to look over them and, possibly, pigeon-hole them. The Lord President was so reasonable in his reply to Lord Banbury that I hope the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment. It will not interfere with the efficiency of the Bill, but will, I think, make it on the whole more acceptable and enable the Department to get better information than they do at present.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("with respect to the cultivation") and insert ("of the acreage").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD PARMOOR: I understand that the effect of the noble Duke's Amendment would be that persons connected with the land would be required to make a Return in writing for each year of the acreage of the land, or of the crops or live stock thereon. The Bill, as drafted, really preserves, in substance, the present form in which these Returns are made. No doubt, the noble Duke is right in saying that at the present time the Returns are voluntary, whereas in future they will be subject to a penalty, but when we come to the question of the penalty I am willing to accept an Amendment put down by the noble Duke. Within the limitations

297
of the Bill the actual form in which the Returns will be required will appear in the Regulations and I am prepared to accept an Amendment from the noble Duke as to the way in which the Returns shall be laid upon the Table. Having regard to those two matters on which I am prepared to meet the noble Duke I will ask him if he cannot leave the existing words in the Bill. Those words enable the Return to be asked for in a sufficiently wide manner. It is thought to be of importance by the Ministry of Agriculture that the Returns should not be cut down so as to give them less information than at present, but when we come to the Regulations and they are laid upon the Table, of course it will be open to the noble Duke, or any one else, to say that we are asking for too much information. This is the view of the Ministry, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed at this point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. I do not entirely agree with my noble friend behind me, Lord Banbury; I think the principle of the Bill is quite right. We want to make these Returns strictly accurate and not only partially so, but I want to know what is meant by general cultivation. We want to know the exact acreage and the crops, but what is cultivation as distinct from crops? I do not understand what that means.
LORD STRACHIE: I think the object of the Ministry is that it shall be explained in these Returns exactly how a man is cultivating—whether he is using sulphate or basic slag. It seems to me to be a very difficult thing to ask and is perfectly unnecessary in a Bill of this sort. The Lord President says there is to be only a small penalty, but even if it is reduced to £5 it is a very serious sum for small holders. It is very important that this particular Amendment should be accepted. I think that it will make the Bill more simple and more acceptable, especially to the small men.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The word "cultivation" was in Section 15 of the Corn Production Act of 1917, but it was there for the very good reason that at that time a subsidy was given to farmers, and there were committees which
298
investigated the control and cultivation of the land. At the present moment no subsidy is given, and there are no committees—and I hope there never will be any more—which can interfere with the business of the farmer, telling him how he ought to cultivate his land. If the Amendment is carried every information which can be wanted can be given. There can be no object in asking for a Return as to cultivation unless you are. going to set up committees to interfere with the farmer in his cultivation. During the Recess I have seen a great many farmers in Wiltshire, and they are very much alarmed, and want to know whether they are to be. interfered with in the conduct of their business. I hope sincerely that my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment, and, if necessary, divide the House upon it.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I attach very great importance to this Amendment. I do not at all agree with the Lord President of the Council that with this alteration the information obtained will not be sufficient. It is a totally different thing altogether. They are as different as chalk from cheese-both agricultural products, but differing entirely. In this particular case what the noble Duke wants to do is to give the Minister all the reasonable information that can be of any use to him. If, however, he is to be told what is the cultivation of the land—and it is the widest phrase and may mean anything or nothing—what are the Department going to dc with the information when they have got it? Will they write to the farmer, and say: "I notice you are going to put down so much land in mangolds, and so much in barley; if so, we think it is a very bad arrangement of your land"? If not, what is the use of cumbering the State and the pigeon-holes of the Ministry of Agriculture with all this information which, when they have it, they cannot use? I hope my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment, and put in words which are practical and businesslike, instead of words which are most misleading, and may be very dangerous.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In the course of this debate reference has beep made to me. It is stated that I was responsible for introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House a year ago. I am

299
not in the least making myself responsible for it to-day, but, in regard to this vexed question of making a Return of cultivation, I should have thought the words proposed were necessary owing to the fact that, certainly on a good many farms in my neighbourhood, there are a number of fields where there is no crop growing, nor are there any sheep, nor any grass—at least, I hope there is not, because, if there is, it is only twitch grass. In that part of the country there is a good deal of land which is known as "dead fallows," and, if you do not occasionally have "dead fallows" on a heavy clay land, you are very likely to get very bad crops. That stale of cultivation, which is very necessary, would not bring the land under the description in the Bill. I should have thought that there was no harm in asking for the information which is required under the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl and also to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, because I think that the other speakers have entirely misunderstood the meaning of the word "cultivation." It does not mean cultivation in the sense of the way in which the farmer is carrying on his business. It has never been held to include that, nor is it intended now to include it. I have before me what is returned under the head of "cultivation," and I think it is very much the same as has been described by the noble Earl. It states whether land is bare, fallow, or grass, or used for mowing or grazing, or rough grazing, such as mountain heath or moor; and that is information which it is very valuable for the Ministry to have. I did not think it would ever have been suggested that this was an interference with the methods of carrying on business. This is information which has been regularly supplied, it is exactly the information to which the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, referred, and I hope that your Lordships will allow the words to remain in the Bill.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Cannot a precise word be found? It is evident, by the admission of the noble Lord, that, though the ordinary practice is what he has described and I understand that nobody has raised any objection to it, the word proposed in the Bill is capable of another moaning. The English
300
language is a rich language. I should have imagined that some phrase could be discovered which would not be open to the misconstruction of which the noble Duke and other members of your Lordships' House are afraid.
LORD PARMOOR: For the moment it does not occur to me that there is a better word than cultivation to express what is intended, but I should be most willing to consider the point between now and the Report stage, and to see the noble Duke about it, in order that we may make it quite clear that this is not a question of the way in which a business is being carried on, but the condition of the fields as they stand. I hope that, if the Amendment is withdrawn now. suitable words can be found to meet the whole difficulty before the Report stage
THE EARL OF MAYO: May I ask if the acreage of dead pasture mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster——
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, I did not mention pasture, I was referring to cultivated fields.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Well, dead fallow. Is the acreage of "dead fallow" given in the Returns?
LORD PARMOOR: I think it is rather difficult satisfactorily to answer a question of that kind on the spur of the moment, but if this could be left over till the Report stage I will promise to give every consideration to it in order, as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has pointed out, that we may find the most appropriate language.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I suggest that the noble Lord should agree to omit the word "cultivation," and to include the word "acreage" now, and, if between now and the Report stage, he should find a better word, we could consider it. It is far better to delete the objectionable word now, and to alter the clause again later, if it is found that we are wrong.
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry I am unable to accept that suggestion. It would obviously leave uncovered in the Returns very valuable particulars, and I could not assent to the word being struck out.
LORD CARSON: Would not the best way be to put in a definition of cultivation, and tell us what it is?
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I think that might meet the difficulty, but I am not prepared now to give a definition on such a difficult point.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: It would seem, perhaps, ungracious if I did not accept the offer that my noble friend has made, though I was specially asked to put down this Amendment and to press it. The real objection I have is to the vagueness of the term in the Bill. Although many of your Lordships want me to go to a Division, after the way in which the noble Lord has met me I hardly like to ask your Lordships to divide. But it is finite understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will look into the matter and will meet my point by inserting a clear definition, so that there can be no abuse of the word "cultivation" by asking for a lot of unnecessary and vexatious information. If that is so, I think I must ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to corroborate what the noble Duke has said. He has expressed my real intention.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to omit from subsection (1) "or the persons employed on the land." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is proposed in order to bring the Bill within the definition given by my noble friend Lord Ancaster on the Second Reading stage last year. If noble Lords will refer to Section 15 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, they will see that the numbers of men employed are not required. If under that Act, which gave a subsidy to the farmers, and interfered with the cultivation of the farmers' land, it was not necessary to give the numbers of men employed, why is it necessary to do so now? There is a further point. It is extremely difficult, in farming, to say exactly how many men you do employ. Take my own case. I employ a certain number of men regularly, but during the hay and corn harvest I employ extra men, and not always the same number; generally, men who are employed on other parts of the small estate which I
302
have. Again, I have men in to cut hedges. I do not have them in every year. I have had a man in for six or seven weeks this year, whom I have not had for a great number of years. And so with ditchers.
How am I to return the number of men I employ? Remember, this is compulsory, and if you do not make a correct Return you are liable to a line, at present not exceeding £20. Supposing I say I employ twelve men, and the Department say: "We require to see your wage-sheet," and I produce my wage-sheet, which shows that fifteen men are employed. They would say: "You have made a false Return," and I should reply: "It is true, I did at that particular time employ twelve men, but the three other men were extra men whom I had in; I did not think it was necessary to put them down. "What is going to happen then? They may say in the end:" That is all right; you need not do anything." Your Lordships see the trouble and bother to which farmers will be put. When it was voluntary it did not matter so much. Now that it is to be compulsory it will place a very considerable burden on the farmer. What is the object of it? What does it matter to the Ministry of Agriculture how many men a farmer employs? Is it that there is to be a Bill enacting that no farmer must employ fewer than so many men per hundred acres? If that is not the object, what is it?
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will meet me on this point. Surely at the present moment, when agriculture is in a very parlous condition, there is no need to lay further burdens upon the farmer. It may seem not to give a great deal of trouble to the farmer to say how many men he employs; but as a matter of fact the vast majority of farmers do not keep any very accurate accounts, and this would entail a great deal of trouble. I have not an agent; I have only a sort of foreman and I have to do all this myself It would entail a great deal of work if I had to go through all my wages sheets, which come in once a fortnight, to find out how many men I employ and for how long I have employed them. What is the object of the Ministry of Agriculture knowing whether Lord Parmoor employs twelve men, or fourteen? If any one wants to discover the number of men employed in agriculture he can get it from the Census Returns. You will not get a true Return

303
if you insist upon this provision, because there are the extra men who are employed and who cannot really be put into the Return. The farmer makes his Return in June, say, and he finds that the corn harvest is delayed by the weather and it becomes necessary, on the few fine days at his disposal, to employ additional men to gather the harvest together. When he makes his Return he does not know whether he is going to employ those additional men or not, and the Return is of no use. It seems to me that the only possible object in view is that it may be placed in the hands of those who want to interfere with the management of the farm and to say that a certain number of men must be employed per hundred acres. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("or the persons employed on the land").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I should regret it if these Returns were asked for in a form which gave unnecessary labour to my noble friend Lord Banbury. But the Ministry of Agriculture consider, not in regard to a particular farm or Return, but in reference to the conditions of the industry generally, that it is important for Them to have these statistics. The conditions, of course, are very different from those of the Corn Production Act of 1917, which was an Act not for the purpose of obtaining information upon which agriculture might be benefited—which is, of course, the, hope in connection with this Return—but in connection with specific points in a particular Act. The Ministry of Agriculture think it is of importance, when they want to assist agriculture in various ways, that they should have this information. I do not think that the noble Lord will be subject to the difficulties or penalties he suggested. There is no real difficulty in giving the number of men who are really employed. I do not suppose that would mean a man who came on for a week or something of that sort, but the number of men who are normally employed. I hope your Lordships will allow this provision to stand in the Bill. I do not think there is any difficulty about it. There is certainly no sinister object in it. We can get a certain amount of this information, no doubt, from the decennial Census Returns, as I pointed out on
304
Second Reading: but it would be very imperfect. Therefore, I trust that your Lordships will allow the Ministry to have this information, which, in their view, is of great importance in regard to the industry at large. I hope that the Amendment will not be agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON: I hope my noble friend Lord Banbury will insist upon his Amendment. I have had a sheep farm in occupation for a few years and I find it very difficult to know how many men are employed there. It is a source of constant dismay to me to find how many people come on at lambing time, shearing time, and so on. I cannot see why the Ministry of Agriculture should lay such great stress on the importance of obtaining this information. This is merely an inquisitorial Act. It is important, I suppose, because it is fashionable nowadays for the Government to poke its finger into every concern. I cannot see how the public can benefit by the very inadequate Return which will be made at best, be cause it cannot be an accurate Return.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, made a very conciliatory speech, but I wish he could satisfy the House that this information would be useful for the Ministry of Agriculture. They wish to have it; but the Lord President did not tell us why they want to have it, and I am afraid that many people will think that it is a Return for a purpose which the Lord President himself would disclaim, lie told us a moment ago, and I heard him say it with great satisfaction, that His Majesty's Government had no desire to interfere with the methods of agriculture. I think that is what he said in his speech. I am glad that I gathered his meaning correctly. But there is a very widespread feeling in the country that there is a desire to interfere. You hear people in the country saying: "Are they going to send down instructors and professors from Whitehall to teach us how-to manage our farms?" That is the sort of thing they do not regard with any satisfaction at all, and that is why I, for one, should be glad to see that ambiguous expression "cultivation" disappear from this clause altogether. For exactly the same reasons, I should like to see this reference to the number of men employed disappear also, because it seems to lend

305
itself to the same kind of suspicion which, I think, is doing a great deal of harm in the country. I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill said that there was no sinister meaning in this provision. The difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, can be got over quite easily. One column of the Return might be headed "Casual labourers" and another column "Labourers engaged in task work." That would cover the point to which Lord Banbury objected. He said that he had to take on extra men from time to time. We all have to do it. In all parts of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales extra men are taken on at harvest time, and people are employed on task work. The Government, of course, are pledged to economy and they would have to scrap a great many thousands of the forms which they propose, though they may be using the old ones. But the difficulty mentioned by Lord Banbury could be got over easily in the way I have.suggested, and I commend my suggestion to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his suggestion, which will be carefully considered. I am afraid I can say nothing more on the main point. As I have stated, this information is required by the Ministry in order that they may understand all the conditions of agriculture. I am sure—at least I am instructed and I firmly believe—that it is not required for any other purpose, or for a sinister purpose such as has been suggested. I must leave the Amendment to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "twenty pounds" and insert "five pounds." The noble Duke said: I understand from the Lord President that he is prepared to accept this Amendment, but there is a somewhat similar Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Banbury., whom I do not want to cut out. Should I do so if I move this Amendment now?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Both Amendments are to omit the word "twenty."
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I move to omit the word "twenty."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, leave out "(twenty)."—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to repeat, as I stated before, not by way of emphasising it, but because it is the view of the Government, that we are quite prepared to accept the noble Duke's Amendment to leave out "twenty" and insert "five" pounds, which, in the opinion of the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, is a sufficient and fair penalty. I did not know that the noble Duke would quite take up the attitude he has done. We do not consider that a penalty of forty shillings, as proposed by Lord Banbury, is sufficient, and therefore, in agreeing that "twenty" should be left out, the Government do so with the intention of accepting the other part of the noble Duke's Amendment that five pounds should be inserted.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I now move to insert "forty shillings"
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I must say that for myself I think that £5 is not an unreasonable sum to put in, but I do not want to move it and prevent my noble friend from having an opportunity of speaking on the question. I move to insert the word "five."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, after ("exceeding") insert ("five").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understood that my noble friend wanted me to move my Amendment, but I do not care which way it is. I shall be content to accept £5.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO moved to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I go a little further than the noble Duke, because I wish to omit the penalty subsection altogether. When I spoke on Second Reading I foreshadowed what I meant by this Amendment, and I gave my reason for wishing to omit this paragraph. The

307
Returns would be got from all over the country a great deal more easily by voluntary methods than they will be got by imposing a penalty. I do not allude to those districts where there is a large population and a sufficient number of police or officials to carry out the task, but to those parts of Wales and Scotland where the population is scattered, and where, if you want your Returns to be accurate, and worth having, you will find it excessively difficult to get them unless you send out an army of people to serve the notices, and, if they are not filled up properly, send out those people again to tell the farmers that if they do not fill them up they will have to go before a magistrate and be fined.
In the speech of the noble Lord on the Second Reading he touched on this subject very clearly. He said:—
"… the Board of Agriculture Act. 1889. … contains no provision as to the method in which those statistics are to be collected, although, as a matter of fact, on a voluntary basis, a very large number of annual Returns were made. These Returns were subsequently made compulsory by the Corn Production' Act, 1917, but with the repeal of that Act the compulsory powers disappeared."
Then he went on to mention that the council of the National Farmers' Union, recognising the great value of accurate statistical and economic information to the industry in all its branches, had informed the Minister of Agriculture that it would welcome the introduction of a measure in Parliament to put upon a sound basis the annual agricultural statistics from England and Wales. But the National Farmers' Union said nothing about this being compulsory. I think that if they had realised that it would be compulsory, and that they were liable to be fined, they would not have been so anxious to pass their resolution.
The noble Lord told us that the proposal to make the Returns compulsory was also submitted to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Council of Agriculture and that it received the approval of both those bodies. I wonder if they realised the number of people who were to be employed to serve these notices, and to tell the farmers that unless they filled them up they would be fined. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is not prepared to accept my Amendment. I would point out to him that the experience in my own country is that we
308
get Returns quite easily, and that there is no fine. The twenty-six counties of Ireland are very much smaller than the parts of England, Scotland and Wales to which I allude. The noble and learned Lord knows that a great deal better than I do. I beg to move my Amendment, though I do not think it is much use my trying to persuade the noble Lord to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 22 to 25, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD PARMOOR: As the noble Earl has stated, the National Farmers' Union in England and Wales, and in Scotland, passed resolutions approving the principle of compulsory Returns, and the whole Bill is based on the principle that there should be compulsory Returns in order that the information may be obtained. The penalty has been reduced to £5, as desired by the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch), and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, for it really would alter the whole character of the Bill, which, if this Amendment were passed, would no longer be a Bill of a compulsory kind.
THE EARL OF MAYO: It would make it a voluntary Bill instead of a compulsory one, and that is what I am aiming at.
LORD PARMOOR: The farmers themselves desire that it should be compulsory in order that it may be effective.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I beg to move, in subsection (3) (b), to substitute "ten pounds" for "twenty pounds."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("ten").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to omit from subsection (3) (b) "unless he proves that he made the return innocently and without negligence" and to insert "if it is proved that he knowingly made such untrue return." The noble Lord said: This is a legal point and I move the Amendment with some trepidation. As the Bill stands, if a man

309
makes an untrue Return he has to prove that he made it innocently and without negligence. I have always understood the law to be that a man has not to prove his innocence but that the prosecution has to prove his guilt. The Lord Chancellor will be able to tell me if I am right in that supposition. My Amendment meets the point. It may be extremely difficult for a man who quite innocently makes a mistake to prove that he did so innocently and without negligence. Surely it is for the Department to prove that the man knew he was making a false Return. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill is a celebrated lawyer. Perhaps he will agree with my definition of the law, and in that case I hope he will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("unless he proves that lie made the return innocently and without negligence") and insert ("if it is proved that lie knowingly made such untrue return"). (Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think the somewhat wide principle to which the noble Lord refers, and with which I entirely agree, has any application to the present case at all. The matter stands in this way. A Return is required; it is not made, or it is made negligently. Surely in those circumstances, if a question arises, it is for the person to show-that the Return has been made in a proper manner. The person who makes a faulty Return should give an explanation as to why he made a faulty Return.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I beg to move, in subsection (6), to leave out "or osier land or woodland."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("or osier land or woodland").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am prepared to assent to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (6) the words "but shall not be applied to woodlands or gardens attached to dwelling-houses where such woodland and/or garden are less in extent than two statute,
310
acres."The noble Lord said: In consequence of the acceptance by the noble and learned Lord of the last Amendment I will omit all reference to woodlands in moving this Amendment. There are a good many people who have land attached to their villas and cottages from which they sell a good deal of produce. I think a line should be drawn somewhere as to lands from which these Returns are to he demanded.
Amendment moved—
Page 2. line 15, at end insert ("but shall not be applied to gardens attached to dwelling-houses where such gardens are lees in extent than two statute acres").—(Lord Raglan.)
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord apparently thinks that these gardens are gardens in the ordinary sense. They are market gardens.
LORD RAGLAN: Is there a definition of market gardens? If I sell a row of carrots does not that make the garden a market garden?
LORD PARMOOR: No, certainly not. It is not meant to apply to an ordinary private garden attached to a cottage. I ask the noble Lord in these circumstances to leave out the proposed words. It may be necessary further to consider the definition of agricultural land which is construed to include market gardens. The definition of agricultural land is in subsection (6), and it includes "land used as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or for a market garden or nursery ground." The noble Lord will see that that definition sufficiently protects him.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I do not think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made the matter sufficiently clear. Unless the Amendment of my noble friend is accepted, there is no reason why every garden attached to a dwelling-house should not be treated as a market garden or nursery garden, and I venture, to interpose on the really public ground that of all the grave scandals of national expenditure at this moment probably the greatest is the enormous mass of statistics of every description which are piled up in the public offices and which are perfectly useless to anybody. I do not say that there may not be some utility in the statistics which the Government seek under this Bill. If you want to know

311
the amount of corn land or land under any particular culture, it is quite understandable that it may be necessary to have these Returns, though I have grave doubts whether they will be utilised to any great advantage. But to serve on every small occupier a variety of papers, to force labourers to make Returns, to make all the mistakes which public Departments always make,—calling upon a man time after time, and sending him, as I have seen sent, five or six reminders—seems to me to be a waste of money against which this House ought to set its face.
Let me tell the noble Lord that I sat upon the Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer nine years ago, and, of all the questions upon which that Committee pronounced, that which called for their strongest comment was the immense rise in the cost of the Stationery Department owing to absolutely futile Returns. We examined head of Department after head of Department, and they admitted that in a great number of cases these arrangements had been made twenty or thirty years ago, that a large number of people were employed in connection with them and that little or no public use was made of the information obtained. I think the noble Lord is fully justified in asking for further information, and I sincerely trust that he will press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I must say that I am rather afraid of this Amendment. As the Bill stands it applies to market gardens, but not to private gardens attached to houses. Under this Amendment any private garden attached to a house might, if over two acres, come within the Bill.
LORD RAGLAN: Only if the produce is sold.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I am not at all sure about that. The sale of the produce does not make the garden a market garden. The Amendment might, I think, have an effect which the noble Lord does not intend.
LORD PARMOOR: There has never been any difficulty in the definition of market garden in the Agricultural Holdings Act, and no such difficulty has ever arisen as the noble Lord suggested. As regards the wider question, every one desires that unnecessary Returns should
312
not be asked for, but these Returns are, I think, essential. The amount of extra work relating to these small market gardens is probably very slight indeed, but we want the Returns in order to get a correct estimate of the whole position regarding all agricultural land, including market gardens. If the proposed words were included, they might involve the risk to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Does the noble Lord contend that corn can be grown on a holding of under two acres attached to a dwelling-house?
LORD PARMOOR: That is not suggested; but corn is not the only product of agricultural land. There are agricultural products that can perfectly well be grown on market gardens, and which are habitually and constantly so grown.
THE EARL OF MAYO: This question has cropped up before. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, has said, gardens over two acres will not be covered by this Amendment, but there are gardens over two acres, attached to dwelling houses, of which the produce is sold. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made it clear that the definition of a market garden has been settled, but my noble friend Lord Midleton was right when he said that a host of people will have to be paid to look after the matter. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has left out the reference to woodlands—and quite rightly—but what is to be said of these gardens of over two acres? We have had no distinct answer from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill with regard to that point, and I should be glad—I do not know whether the Committee will agree with me—if he would give us a little more information.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out subsection (7), and to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) Before any regulation is made under this Act, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft."

313
The noble Duke said: I think the Lord President is going to accept this Amendment——
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does not the noble Duke wish to move the Amendment which stands first in his name on the Paper, to leave out the second "may" in subsection (7) and insert "shall"?
LORD PARMOOR: May I point out that the noble Duke is quite right, because if the new subsection is adopted in place of that which is at present in the Bill the other Amendment becomes immaterial. I accept the noble Duke's Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think the Amendment has the advantage of making the matter clearer.
Amendment moved—
Page 2. lines 16 to 24, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke, of Buccleuch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: As one or two matters have to be settled, I do not propose to take the Report stage of the Bill until to-morrow week, which will provide an opportunity of dealing with the matters which have been raised.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS AT SOFIA.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the settlement of Bulgarian Reparations and of the costs of the Armies of Occupation, any reconstruction on a more economical basis of the International Commissions at Sofia has been effected. The question of Allied Commissions in ex-enemy countries is one to which I have called attention on various occasions already, and I hope that some statistician (Mr. Sidney Webb, for choice) will some day calculate the amount of money which has been spent upon useless and extravagant Commissions—money which would otherwise have been diverted into the pockets of ourselves and our Allies. As an instance of the useless extravagance which is perpetrated by these Commissions, I may mention the fact that nearly
314
three years ago I was in Berlin and was informed by a prominent member of one of these Commissions that their work was practically terminated then, whereas, according to the "Hats-off-to-France" Press, their work has not been begun.
In the case of Bulgaria, immediately on the conclusion of hostilities the usual horde of Missions descended upon that country—Frontier Commissions, Reparation Commissions, and Control Commissions—accompanied by typists and other satellites, drawing much larger salaries than the Bulgarian Prime Minister, and there they have remained ever since. These various Commissions have been battening upon the bankrupt Bulgarians for several years. One can understand that it may be necessary to keep these Commissions in existence in Germany, because the Germans do not show any alacrity to pay the Reparations, but the case of Bulgaria is different. The Reparations payable by Bulgaria were fixed at the fantastic figure of £90,000,000, but as the result of negotiations it was reduced to £23,000,000. That took place more than a year ago. One would have supposed that, the amount having been settled, the work of the Commission would have terminated and that it would have broken up and come away, but, far from that being the case, it was then discovered that prolonged negotiations had to be entered upon with reference to the cost of the Armies of Occupation in Bulgaria, and I understand that the Bulgarians have been called upon to pay another million in connection with those costs. That has now been settled, but, so far as I know, these Commissions still remain in existence.
When I last called attention to this subject, and more particularly to the question of these Allied Commissions in Bulgaria, I instanced the case of the head of the British section in Sofia, who, I said, was drawing a higher salary than our Minister there, and I added that I was surprised that he should find himself able to adopt a course of this nature. I am glad to take this opportunity of making amends to this particular gentleman. I have since discovered that, much to his credit, our representative, Sir Elliot Colvin, was very anxious to be withdrawn a long time ago, and I believe it is the case that he has set an example of economy and moderation to his Allied

315
colleagues which might well be imitated. Nevertheless, so far as I know, our Commission still remains there, and I suppose Sir Elliot Colvin is still there. It seems to me. and I suppose it must seem to anybody who has ever been in that part of the world, or in an ex-enemy country, that it is time that this sort of thing came to an end, and I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to announce this afternoon that at all events our Mission is going to be withdrawn, because I am quite convinced that nothing will be done until we take the lead. It is unfortunately perfectly true—although I may be abused for saying it—that if we are to wait for action on the part of our Allies we shall remain very indefinitely. Therefore I hope to have a satisfactory assurance from His Majesty's Government that there will be an early termination of the British Mission in Bulgaria.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I will reply to the Question of the noble Lord. It is a matter which really comes under the Treasury more than under the Foreign Office because it is a question of expenditure. I will, therefore, deal with it, instead of my noble and learned friend, Lord Parmoor. As the noble Lord has indicated, this is by no means the first time that the noble Lord has raised questions in your Lordships' House about the Inter-Allied Commission at Sofia. He has initiated debates on this subject on previous occasions in 1922 and 1923. I will briefly recall to your Lordships' minds the history of these matters. In doing so, I venture to think I shall provide good justification for what has happened up to the present, and I can also make an announcement about the future which will, I hope, be satisfactory to the noble Lord, although it may not go quite as far as he desires.
It will be recollected that the Inter-Allied Commission went to Sofia early in 1921 with the task of fixing the method of settlement of the Reparation liabilities of Bulgaria under the Treaty of Neuilly. The Commission's task was no light one. Its labours proved to be a lengthy business, and great credit for overcoming difficulties must be given to the Delegates on the Commission whose energy and persistence were rewarded with an agreed settlement of the Reparation question in March. 1923. To reach a settlement by
316
agreement is the ideal policy; it is no use grumbling that some time is taken up in argument. The result will abundantly repay any time so spent. Further and equally difficult negotiations were needed on the subsidiary question of recovering the costs of the Allied Armies of Occupation in Bulgaria. A settlement of this question also was reached by mutual agreement—on the 28th March last—and is ready for formal approval by the Allied Governments concerned.
In all these transactions His Majesty's Government are happy to think that the British Delegate, Sir Elliot Colvin, played a conspicuous part, having great influence with his colleagues and with successive Bulgarian Governments. It will thus be seen that the Sofia Commission has produced results and accomplished the most difficult part of its task. Its labours are, of course, not over. There remain some matters for decision in connection with the Bulgarian share of the Ottoman Debt and other matters raised by the Peace Treaty. There must also be some Allied organisation to supervise the working of the new agreements.
Now I will come to the question of finance. The total establishment expenditure of the Commission at Sofia has been:—1921, £47,302; 1922, £41,169; 1923, £36,600. These are the totals for all the Allied countries. In considering these figures it must be borne in mind that political considerations absolutely necessitated the division of the Commission into three national Delegations. That is not the most economical form of organisation, but no other was practical. The progressive reduction in expenditure shows that although constantly engaged in delicate negotiations the Delegates did keep an eye on administrative economy.
As regards the future, the Commission, by achieving the Reparation and cost of occupation settlements, have finished the most difficult part of their task, and it is possible to consider what the normal organisation should be henceforth. His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it should be feasible to keep expenditure within £16.000 a year, and they have recommended this strongly to the Ambassadors' Conference. Their view-is that the main staff of the Commission, apart from the Delegates, should be on international lines (as, for example.

317
in the League of Nations) and this plan will effect large, economies. The Government consider that expenditure on this scale should prove sufficient, though not more than sufficient, and they trust that the proposal will commend itself to the other Governments concerned, who are at one with them in desiring to effect all possible economies. It would, however, be very harmful to reduce expenses to a point at which the Commission loses prestige and is no longer composed of officers of real standing, capable of exercising independent judgment and whose opinions carry real weight with the Allied and with the Bulgarian Governments.
Before I resume my seat I will take this opportunity of announcing that Sir Elliot Colvin, who has been the British Delegate on the inter-Allied Commission in Bulgaria since the Commission was first set up, has informed the Government of his desire to resign his post at the end of the present month, now that the chief tasks of the Commission have been completed. His Majesty's Government feel that the country is greatly indebted to Sir Elliot Colvin for the conspicuous ability with which he has performed the tasks incumbent on him as British Delegate on the Commission. He has succeeded at all times in working in complete harmony with his French and Italian colleagues, and has successfully maintained friendly relations with the Bulgarian Government, in spite of the delicacy of the negotiations in which he took a leading part.
It is perhaps somewhat of a paradox that the Delegates of the Commission entrusted with the administration of the Reparation clauses of the Treaty should have come to be regarded as the sincere friends of the country by whom Reparations are being paid. Such, however, is the case. The fact is that the Commission as a whole has always borne in mind the fact that the financial and economic prosperity of Bulgaria is an essential condition of the discharge of her obligations. In short, the task laid upon the inter-Allied Commission has called for both firmness and tact in no small degree, and the admirable combination of these qualities which Sir Elliot Colvin has displayed has contributed in a large measure to the success achieved by the Commission.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not know whether the Government could add one more fact to the information which they have given to the House—namely, how long they contemplate that this Commission is to go on. As I understood what the noble Lord has just said, it is to cost £16,000 a year, which, of course, has really to be paid by Bulgaria, and is taken out of the money available for Reparations and for all other purposes which Bulgaria has to find. That £16,000 a year is the British Government's proposal; I do not understand that the Allied Governments have accepted that, and I do not quite gather how long the payment of that money is to go on—I presume until the whole of the Reparation debt has been paid by Bulgaria. I do not carry in my mind exactly what date has been fixed for that, but, since the amount is £23,000,000, and other expenses which still have to be estimated, and also the £1,000,000 "for the Army of Occupation, I am afraid it is likely to be some considerable time.
May I very respectfully impress upon the Government the immense importance of getting rid of these relics of the War Commissions as soon as possible? I am sure that, there are many members of the Government who will warmly sympathise with that idea. It is not only a question of whether they are doing useful work. I am sure that all that the noble Lord has said about the services of Sir Elliot Colvin is fully deserved, and every member of the House will desire to join in the tribute which he has paid to him. But that is not quite the point. The point is that these Commissions, of which the Ambassadors' Conference in Paris is the chief—and is, I think, the most pernicious—have existed ever since the war. As far as I understand the noble Lord, they are likely to exist for many, many years more, and that is not a satisfactory state of things if we desire the final pacification of Europe.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, it is true that the Government have not been able to state through my noble friend how long this Commission is to go on. It is impossible now to fix an exact date, but I think I can say that the Government cordially agree with what the noble Viscount has said, that the sooner you can get rid of these War Commissions the better.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am not at all sure that the noble Lord who answered this Question was a very suitable person for the purpose. The noble Lord has very grandiose ideas upon finance, and not very long ago he spoke of a sum of £3,500,000 as a "niggardly contribution." It is quite natural that, in the circumstances, the pettifogging economies which I have suggested did not make much appeal to him. The one thing that is clear to me, as apparently it is to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, is that these Commissions are going on. According to the view of Lord Arnold, you must not reduce their salaries because it will diminish their prestige. It may possibly diminish their prestige, but it is not likely to diminish their popularity. I have passed a certain amount of time in ex-enemy countries since the war, and my own experience is that in all these cases it is the opinion of everybody who has any knowledge of the circumstances that the kind of work which is now performed by a Commission of this kind could perfectly well be performed by one or two secretaries attached to the existing Legation. If the noble Lord could give me some assurance that that would be done, if I were a Bulgarian I should feel considerably more hopeful as to the future. But it seems to me that there is a prospect of these gentlemen remaining at reduced salaries indefinitely.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary to detain your Lordships at great length in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, as its main aims and provisions have been discussed, both here and in another place, on previous occasions. I will endeavour, however, adequately to summarise the objects of the present Bill, and, in particular, I must explain Clause 2, because that clause introduces a new provision. The Bill has four main clauses, and, as they deal with entirely different matters, it follows that the Bill falls into four separate parts. I will deal with them in order.
320
Clause 1 of the Bill increases from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000 the total amount of loans, the principal and interest of which may be guaranteed by the Government, and extends the period during which guarantees may be given from November 9, 1923, until March 31, 1925. The principle involved was fully discussed in the debate upon the original Acts—the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922. Your Lordships will remember that the genesis of these Acts was that the Treasury should have power to guarantee loans for works of a capital nature with a view to relieving unemployment. These Treasury guarantees have undoubtedly been of value in the vital work of finding employment. Under the original Acts, as I have said, there was power to guarantee up to £50,000,000. It is now sought to raise the limit to £65,000,000. The guarantees already given and promised amount to about £43,000,000. Therefore, when this Act is passed the Treasury will have in hand powers to the extent of a further £22,000,000, but these powers, either wholly or in part, must be exercised before March 31, 1925. Before I leave this clause, I would advise your Lordships of one fact which is important in this connection, and will, I think, be recognised as highly satisfactory. In all the guarantees which have been given the Government has only in one case so far been called on to make good a loss. This was in the case of a small brickwork, and the Exchequer was involved in an expenditure of, approximately, £4,000.
Clause 2, as I have before indicated, deals with a new matter, which had no place in the previous Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 and 1922. The clause carries out the Resolution adopted by the Imperial Conference last autumn, that the Treasury should be empowered to contribute towards the interest charges on loans raised in the United Kingdom where the proceeds are spent in this country and are to be applied on, or in connection with, a public utility undertaking in some part of His Majesty's Dominions or in a British Protectorate. I must make it quite clear, my Lords, that this is a proposal to pay money, not to guarantee it, and the clause gives power to pay up to a maximum of three-quarters of the interest on any loans such as I have described.
Now, certain provisions are laid down in the clause, the chief of which is that

321
the contribution must be limited to £1,000,000 in any one year and to £5,000,000 in all. Another important condition is, as I have indicated, that this contribution will only be made by the Home Government on such part of a loan as is expended in the United Kingdom. One of the chief objects of this proposal is to stimulate orders for goods which will be supplied from this country. Thus the clause should do something to reduce unemployment, more particularly as another condition of a contribution by the Home Government is that the loan must be for expenditure which would not normally be incurred until a later date, and it is also definitely laid down that the loan must be calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom. The extent of the possibilities under this clause is considerable. If I assume that loans are raised at 5 per cent. per annum, the Treasury contribution of the maximum of three-quarters of the interest would in all enable assistance to be given towards capital works involving an expenditure of from £26,000,000 to £27,000,000. Having regard to all these conditions, I venture to think that this clause is one which will meet with a wide measure of support.
I now pass to Clause 3, the purpose of which, shortly stated, is to extend the period during which requests for guarantees under the export credits scheme may be received, and also for an extension of the time during which guarantees may remain in force. I need scarcely remind your Lordships of the history of the export credits scheme. It was started five years ago mainly with the object of endeavouring to help our trade with certain countries which had been specially disturbed as a consequence of the war. In the first instance, the plan was to make advances through the Board of Trade in respect of goods exported to those countries. Later, the Government decided to adopt a procedure more closely approximating to the normal methods of financing trade, and agreed to guarantee bills drawn by traders in respect of goods exported to the countries included in the scheme, and to share a proportion of the ultimate loss, if any.
By this clause the Bill extends the period for acceptance of requests for guarantees up to September 8, 1926, and extends the period during which the guarantees may remain in force up to
322
September 8, 1930. According to the most recent figures the total amount of credits actually taken up, including both advances and guarantees, was, in round figures. £9,400,000. To this should be added another £3,400,000 which has been earmarked but not yet taken up, making £12,800,000 in all Out of this total £5,400,000 has already been repaid or, in the case of guarantees, the guarantees have been cancelled on the bills being met. The total amount now in use or earmarked is, therefore, £7,400,000, leaving a balance of £18.600,000 for further transactions No new principle is involved in this clause: it merely continues the system already in force, and the extensions are given with a view to making the export credits scheme more effective in contributing to trade improvement and the provision of employment.
I come now to the last clause of the Bill, Clause 4, which deals with matters which are already well known to your Lordships' House and have been discussed on several previous occasions. The clause provides that the Treasury may guarantee the principal and interest of a loan to be raised by the Government of the Soudan of a further amount of £3,500,000. This money is required in connection with the Gezirah irrigation scheme. Previous guarantees have been given by the British Government for this scheme to an amount, in all, of £9,500,000. Therefore, the further £3,500,000 provided for by this clause will bring the total in respect of which guarantees have been given to £13,000,000. This clause, which gives power for this additional guarantee of £3,500,000, lays down conditions similar to those which have been previously enacted. The general effect of these conditions is that the Soudan Government must make proper arrangements for applying the loan and charging it on the general revenue and assets of the Soudan, and establish a proper sinking fund to redeem the loan within fifty years of the time it is raised.
This farther loan of £3,500,000 is to complete the Gezirah irrigation scheme. The contract for the work is let to a British firm, and it is to be completed by July, 1925. It is estimated that after the completion of the irrigation scheme, 70,000 bales of cotton annually wall be obtainable from the Soudan. This will be

323
a substantial contribution towards increasing the output of a vital raw material. Another advantage which will accrue from this loan is that the placing of this big contract with a British firm means an expenditure of considerable sums of money in this country upon plant, machinery, steel and iron work and materials, all of which should help to relieve unemployment. I should say that it had been hoped to raise this final loan of £3,500,000 without the guarantee of the British Government. Proposals to that end have, however, proved impracticable, and therefore this guarantee is needed. If the British Government were to decline to guarantee this £3,500,000, the position might be somewhat serious. It might be I that the whole of the irrigation scheme would be in jeopardy, and, as the British Government has already given guarantees up to £9,500,000 in connection with the scheme, it seems the wiser plan to guarantee this further sum of £3,500,000 with the object of carrying the work through to a satisfactory and remunerative conclusion.
I have now dealt with all the provisions of the Bill, and I venture to think that, taken as a whole, it is a measure which will commend itself to your Lordships because it is designed to continue and extend schemes already adopted for reducing unemployment and furthering trade. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Arnold.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in view of the proposals which have been made by the Government in another place to abolish the McKenna Duties, and which, it is obvious, will increase unemployment, I must say that I am very much surprised that they should now produce in your Lordships' House a scheme which may affect unemployment in an opposite direction.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether my understanding of Clause 2 is correct. The clause is rather involved, but, as I understand it, the fact is that we guarantee to spend a sum not exceeding £5,000,000 in all, and that we shall never get that five
324
million pounds back. We practically make a present of £5,000,000 to certain people in the Dominions. Is that correct?
LORD ARNOLD: Potentially. If all the money is used £5,000,000 would be paid, not guaranteed, as interest on loans, but the loans in respect of which that interest would be used must be money which is spent in this country, and therefore it will help unemployment here and will also help the Empire.
LORD BANBUBY OF SOUTHAM: It is really giving a subsidy to a certain undertaking on the understanding that that undertaking spends the money in this country.
LORD ARNOLD: In effect, yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We are going to spend £5,000,000 to alleviate unemployment, and I do not think we shall ever get a penny of it back. We are really making a present of it. When we come to Clause 4, as I understand from the noble Lord, another £3,500,000 is to be spent because, if you do not spend this additional £3,500,000, the £9,000,000 which we have already spent, or some such sum, will probably be wasted. I dare say that is true, and it may be advisable to spend a certain amount of money in order to complete the work, but what is going to happen if what we see in the newspapers is correct? I do not always believe what I see in the newspapers, but what is going to happen if the Egyptian Government take over the government of the Soudan and we abandon the control of the Soudan to that Government? I may be wrong, but if so I should like to be put right. So far as I can gather from the newspapers one of the claims made by the present Egyptian Government is that we should withdraw altogether from the Soudan, and that the Soudan should be managed by Egyptians and by them only. Are the Government going to say: "No, we have invested a certain amount of money in that country, we have made that country prosperous, and we are going to stand as we are," or are they going to give way? If they are going to give way I do not think they ought to lend any more money. If they are going to retain control of the Soudan itself I should not object to it, but I should like to know what the position is.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this is really not an occasion on which to embark upon a question of foreign policy. Whatever may be the policy of the Government in the future, on which I desire to say nothing at present, I think it may be taken that an expenditure of this kind will be safeguarded. But I shall not be led into embarking on a discussion of foreign policy on this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, may I ask that we should be permitted to take the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow? It is a Money Bill, and no Amendment-can be carried. The Bill is rather urgently required. Contracts are awaiting confirmation, and can be entered into as soon as this Bill is passed. The Government have done their best to push it forward, and in the circumstances I hope that we may be permitted to take the Committee stage to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I think the request of the noble Lord is a reasonable one, and I shall agree to it.

FARM LABOURERS' WAGES IN WILTSHIRE.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government if they are prepared to give the authority on which the Minister of Agriculture stated that in certain parishes in Wiltshire farm labourers are only paid £1 (one pound) a week. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the facts of the case which I desire to bring to the notice, of His Majesty's Government are very simple, and can be briefly stated. Some time ago the Minister of Agriculture made a statement in his place in Parliament to the effect that there were two counties in England in which the wages paid wore so low as £1 a week, and he mentioned Wiltshire and Berkshire as those two counties. I was abroad at the time, and I was very much surprised to read of that statement. I have taken some personal interest for a considerable time in this question, and I knew that at any rate within a short period of my going abroad the wages in many districts in Wiltshire were not £1 a week but 30s. a week, and in a great
326
many cases 27s. a week, although the agricultural conditions in certain parts of the county are extremely bad.
The farmers of Wiltshire were very indignant indeed about this statement, and they at once instituted inquiries. Two or three Members for Wiltshire in the other House interrogated His Majesty's Government, and they made the very natural suggestion that a statement of this kind ought either to be supported by quoted authority or withdrawn. In this particular case the Minister made what seemed to me to be an amazing statement—namely, that the authority could not be given because the person who had given him the information declined to have his name disclosed. At school we used to call a boy who did that sort of thing a sneak, and we knew how to deal with him. Unfortunately, when we are grown up those summary methods are not resorted to. I am bound to say, so far as my knowledge goes, that it is entirely contrary to the universal practice of Englishmen, and above all of English Ministers, to make a grave charge founded upon authority and to refuse to quote that authority, or, when you find that your statement is ridiculously incorrect, to refuse to withdraw it.
What happened in this particular case? The National Union of Farmers is very active in my County, and in each of their brunches they immediately instituted inquiries. For some considerable time they could not hear of a single case in the County where wages had been so reduced, but last week a case was discovered in one village where one man, it is true, had had his wages reduced to £1 a week. One man in one village! And this is enough for the Minister of Agriculture upon which to base a general charge of this grave kind against all the agricultural employers in the County. It is an outrage. The Minister of Agriculture represents, or ought to represent, all the interests connected with our great industry of agriculture. He is as much a representative of those who own the land and of the farmers who cultivate it, as he is of those who work upon the land, and he is not going to serve the labourers' interest, or secure an improvement in their wage conditions, by making statements of this kind and then refusing to verify them.
We were discussing, a short time ago in your Lordships' House, a measure deal-

327
ing with Agricultural Returns, and the Lord President found it very difficult to understand why some Amendments were moved from this side of the House. He contested the desirability of the alterations that were proposed and, I am happy to say, carried. It is evident from the Lord President's speech that he does not realise the present condition of things in the agricultural world. He does not realise that the conditions have changed by what has recently happened. He justifies his action by reference to the voluntary condition of things that has been hitherto in existence. I would point out, in the first place, that that condition of things was voluntary, and in the second place that the air was not infected as it is to-day with all these rumours and reports of what the Government are going to do. We hear of compulsion imposed upon farmers to make certain payments, and to do certain things. It is a blind man's policy, it is a policy made in defiance of all the facts as they exist at the present moment, it is a policy which will perish in the hands of those who are trying to force it upon our industry, and one that will react bitterly upon the very class whom the Government seek to help.
Let it be remembered that a statement made in Parliament is a privileged statement. You cannot proceed upon it. But supposing the Minister said: "I will make it outside," and he does so? The whole farming community of Wiltshire could not then bring an action for libel against the Minister of Agriculture, or at least I suppose not. This is an entirely misleading statement. It is not true that the farmers of Wiltshire are paying only £1 a week, it is not true that there is a great difference between the wages paid there and elsewhere. My belief is that, taken as a whole, the wages are as good and satisfactory in Wiltshire as they are anywhere else. And we have only heard of one case. When the Minister of Agriculture was asked by Members in the other House to give his authority for the statement it was not only because we wanted to know whether this charge, which we believe to be unfounded, had any foundation or not, but also because we wanted to find out the facts and use such influence as we possess to get the condition of things altered. Yet the Minister of Agriculture makes this statement and refuses to give any authority, or even admit that he has been misled.
It is not consistent with the best traditions of English government for a Minister to make a statement of that kind, to be unable to substantiate it, and then refuse to withdraw it. It reflects the greatest discredit on the farming community; it is discreditable to my own County, and it is absolutely untrue. I am here to repudiate it absolutely and entirely, and to say that the closest inquiries and most vigorous search made throughout the whole of the County has only revealed one case. I submit to His Majesty's Government that for their own reputation for character as fair-dealing men this charge ought to be withdrawn, and withdrawn without qualification. I shall be much surprised if the Lord President of the Council does not take advantage of this occasion to make it perfectly clear that the Minister was misled and that the charge is repudiated and withdrawn whole-heartedly. At least, so much justice is due to those whom I represent, the agriculturists of my own County.
LORD PARMOOH: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount has very much exaggerated the statement that was made, and has not perhaps given sufficient attention to the corroboration which is forthcoming in support of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in another place. The noble Viscount asks whether the Government "are prepared to give the authority on which the Minister of Agriculture stated that in certain parishes of Wiltshire agricultural labourers are being paid only £1 per week." No such statement was ever made by the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to read exactly what he did say. This is the actual statement made in the other place:—
"In the South of England, I am sorry to say, I hear of cases of a wage as low as £1; not, I hope, very numerous cases, but there certainly are some. When we talk of 25 s. we must remember that the Norfolk men have not been working 50 hours but 48 a week.
"Ms. BLACK: Does the 25s. include rent and no emoluments?
"Mr. BUXTON: Yes, I hope those cases are rare. What the Prime Minister said about two months ago no one can deny—namely, that it is impossible to get good value for such wages as that. There is nothing more uneconomic than a sweated wage. There is a good deal of interest in a regulated wage. Very often there are

329
farmers who would like to pay a bettor wage than they are doing, but whose 6ense of social duty precludes thorn from paying as good a wage as they would like to pay. These are the very men whom regulation would protect.
"MR. LAMBERT: Are the conciliation committees working where these £1 a week wages are paid?
"MR. BUXTON: No, there are very few conciliation committees working at all.
"SIR HENRY CAUTLEY: In what locality are these wages of £1 a week paid?
"MR. BUXTON: In Berkshire and Wiltshire."
Therefore the statement was that in Wiltshire, as the noble Viscount has said, there were rare cases—I use that expression-in which these low wages were paid.
When the question was raised in the House of Commons with regard to the sources of information no doubt the answer was given in the way pointed out by the noble Viscount. As the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture stated, in reply to questions in the House of Commons on April 16, 1924, to disclose the names of the farmers whose workers are in receipt of low wages, or to disclose the districts where they are paid, would obviously embarrass the persons concerned, and the Minister does not see his way to disclose the names or the sources of his information its to cases of low wages in Wiltshire. The noble Viscount can be assured, however, that the information is derived from unimpeachable sources.
In addition to that, further information can be added. Since the statement was made, other cases have been brought to the Minister's notice, and in one case a wage of 17s. only per week is being-received. Confirmation of cases of low wages has been received as a result of an inquiry by the Ministry's own inspectors which clearly indicated that able-bodied men doing a full week's work were receiving only 20 s. per week. In two cases which came, to the inspector's personal notice, the men were married with families; in one case he was a general farm worker and milker doing 62 hours per week, including Sundays, for 20 s. per week, and in the other case a general farm worker working 52 hours for the same sum.
Then this matter, as the, noble Viscount has stated, was discussed in Wiltshire. It was discussed at the Chippenham branch
330
of the National farmers' Union on Saturday, April 26, and I take the following quotation from the report of the discussion:—
"Mr. Prior referred to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that there were farmers in Wiltshire paying £1 a week to their employees. He regarded that as an insult to the farmers in the county but he was sorry to say he had found a case in his neighbourhood. Mr. Prior said he had been to the farmer himself and told him of the disgrace we was bringing upon himself, the parish and the farmers generally. His excuse was that the man came to him as he could not get other work and he put him on temporarily at that figure. He understood the man had reduced his other employees from 27 s. to £1."
That is a statement made by Mr. Prior, a Wiltshire farmer, who may be known to the noble Viscount.
The last agreement made by the conciliation committee in Wiltshire lapsed on September 29, 1922, and since that date it is understood that the majority of the farmers have paid their workers in accordance with the recommendation of the county branch of the National Farmers' Union. The county Farmers' Union recommended a minimum rate of 27 s. per week for 50 hours with proportionate rates for overtime beyond the 50 hours, and proportionate reductions for men below 21, and it is understood that this rate is paid by the majority of the farmers in the County. I want to emphasise that, because the only statement made in the first instance was that it was a rare occurrence. It has never been suggested that it was paid in parishes in Wiltshire. Here we have a statement that the general rate was a rate which had been fixed by the County Farmers' Union, although the conciliation committee was no longer in force. Yet, as stated by Mr. Prior at the Chippenham meeting, there was a case of £1 a week, and the farmer had reduced his other labourers to the same figure.
The Minister has received protests from the Wiltshire branch of the National Farmers' Union and others in connection with his statement about low wages in Wiltshire, and suggesting that, if there are cases in which farmers are paying only £1 a week, the men concerned are not fully able-bodied workers, but are men employed on compassionate grounds at a lower rate than the standard wage

331
because they are only partially competent. It should be pointed out, however, that the cases brought to the Minister's notice are of able-bodied men doing a normal week's work. In making this statement as to low wages in Wiltshire in the House of Commons, the Minister of Agriculture never suggested that £1 a week was the general rate being paid to agricultural labourers in the County, or in any district. His sole object was to emphasise the need for machinery for compulsory regulation of wages in agriculture, in order to prevent a few unscrupulous employers from exploiting the weak bargaining powers of their workers.
I think the words used by the noble Viscount are hardly justified. It is clear that no statement was made that the farm labourers in Wiltshire were paid such an impossible wage as £1 a week, but it is true that a rare case has occurred, and, in addition, that information of other cases has been given by the inspectors to the Ministry of Agriculture. I am certain, speaking on behalf of the head of the Ministry of Agriculture, that he would be extremely careful not to exaggerate any statement in a matter of this kind. I do not think he did so, and the remarks of the noble Viscount, which seemed to imply that a general attack had been made upon the agricultural wages paid in the County of Wilts, cannot really be supported when one has regard to that which was actually said by the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in another place.
As regards the other matters referred to by the noble Viscount, I think they were outside the present Question. It may well be that his views upon agricultural policy are very distinct from those of the present Government. That may have to be discussed on some future occasion. But as regards the particular Question which he has asked, I have stated the authority upon which the Minister of Agriculture made his statement, although I do not think—though I know the noble Viscount would be very careful in a matter of this kind—that he ever made the statement that in certain parishes of Wiltshire the agricultural labourers were paid only £1 a week. That which he actually did state I have already read out to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has
332
replied with his usual courtesy, but I think it will be the view of your Lordships that the reply is not altogether adequate. The case, as I have followed it, has two aspects—(1) the nature of the charge that was brought by the Minister of Agriculture in the speech to which reference was made; and (2) his defence of the reasons for which he declined to give the authority for that charge. As regards the first point, I gather from the remarks made on both sides of the House that the case is that, in the first place, the Minister of Agriculture said that in a number of cases, although the occurrence was rare—and he specified Wiltshire—wages were paid at the rate of only £1 a week. To that my noble friend replies that the most careful investigation has shown only one such case as having been established. The noble Lord then says, quoting from a speech made at a meeting—I think he said at Chippenham—that an allegation was made by a farmer that he knew of other cases in which a farmer had reduced wages from £1 7s. to £1 a week. Was that in Wiltshire? No such statement was made.
LORD PARMOOR: I understood—the meeting being in Wiltshire—that it referred to Wiltshire.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The assumption is that it was in Wiltshire. The allegation is, therefore, not only that was there one case, but that there were other cases. If that be so, surely the first duty of the Minister of Agriculture, when challenged, is to give his authority.
This brings me to my second point. We have all known in our public life occasions when information is given to us privately and confidentially, under conditions which make it very difficult to give away the name of the informant. Those conditions are, as a rule, two in number. In the first place, a man may say to you: "I obtained this information in the most confidential way, and under pledge of secrecy, and therefore you must not put me in an impossible position." Or he may say: "I give you this information, but I am very reluctant indeed to be put in a position where I myself may be made the victim of a legal action in consequence." We are very familiar with both those cases, but neither of them applies to this

333
instance. Surely, if a statement of this sort is made, be it just or unjust, by a Minister of the Crown, and a Minister of the Grown is challenged, it is not open to him to say in reply: "I do not want to asperse the character of this or that parish; I do not want to attack this or that farmer." He is bound, as an officer of the Government, to state his authority for a statement which is in its essence damaging, disparaging and injurious. If it is true, that is all the more reason for making the matter public.
Here I come to what struck me as the most vital point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Long. He said that he took action to-day, not only in a spirit of righteous indignation—as was evident—but in order to remove any abuse that might exist. He is concerned with the honour of his County, and with the reputation of the farmers of Wiltshire; and there I think he is quite right. I am bound to say that I think, in the first place, that the charge ought to have been made much more definitely, and not in the rather loose terms that the Minister of Agriculture adopted; and secondly, that when challenged as to the sources of his information he had no justification whatever for refusing to give them, and for leaving that
334
County under an imputation which, if it is not altogether false, is, at any rate, grossly exaggerated.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I cannot, carry this matter any further. There is no Motion, and therefore] cannot divide the House unless I move for Papers. But there are no Papers that I am aware of, and all I can say is that I entirely agreed with the noble Marquess below me when he said that the reply of the Government was wholly inadequate. It will convey a very bad impression to the agriculturist, not only in Wiltshire but elsewhere, and the Government have only themselves to thank if the language they used, and, above all, the language used by the Minister specially appointed to protect agricultural interests, leads people to believe that they have committed an injustice, and have been unfair to the agricultural industry. I very much regret, for the credit of British statesmanship, that the Government did not take advantage of this opportunity to put themselves right where they have hitherto been wrong, but I can carry the matter no further.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.