Lords Sitting of 18 February 1926

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CHOSEN SYNDICATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
TRENT FALLS IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

EXECUTION OF DILIGENCE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, this is a very simple measure. It is a Bill to amend the law relating to the execution of diligence in Scotland. At present it is practically impossible in various parts of Scotland, particularly in the northern and western counties, and in the islands to enforce the decrees of the Courts. This hindrance to the effective administration of justice is due to the very marked decline which has taken place during the last fifty years in the numbers of messengers-at-arms and sheriff officers, who alone under existing Statutes can competently take certain of the steps necessary to enforce or execute judgments of the Court of Session and the Sheriff Court. This Bill gives effect to the recommendations of a Departmental Committee which was appointed by the Secretary for Scotland in 1922, in response to representations by legal bodies, and which has thoroughly explored the situation. The main remedies proposed are an extension of the use of registered letters for the execution of certain processes, and the giving of power to the sheriff, when ho is satisfied that no messenger-at-arms or sheriff officer is reasonably available, to appoint any suitable person to execute a decree or warrant. The recommendations of the Committee have been received with
182
approval in Scotland, and no charge on Government funds is involved, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, this is a Bill which is very unattractive in form, and consists mainly of amendments to certain sections of the existing Bankruptcy Act. I think that with a short explanation of the important clauses I shall be able to make the Bill clear. As your Lordships know, bankruptcy is regulated now by the Act of 1014, which consolidated a number of Statutes. After the War there was a large number of bankruptcies, which caused a good deal of loss to the business community, and at the desire of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. A. M. Samuel, who was then a private member but is now in charge of the Overseas Trade Department. That Bill was withdrawn on the promise of the Government of the day to appoint a Committee to go into the whole matter. A strong Committee was appointed with Mr. E. W. Hansell, a barrister of much experience in bankruptcy law, as Chairman. The Committee heard a great deal of evidence and reported last year. I think we are much indebted to the members of that Committee for the time and skill they gave to the consideration of this matter. This Bill is founded, in the main, on the Report of that Committee. With a few exceptions it proposes to give effect to their recommendations. although there, are some additional proposals, made at the desire of the Department.
Taking the clauses in order very shortly, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the first clause is of a somewhat technical nature, and I will not go into it to-day. The effect of paragraph (b) is this. At present the discharge of a bankrupt is in certain circumstances suspended

183
for not less than two years, even in oases where there is no moral turpitude. That is found to be inconvenient and it is proposed to allow the discharge to be suspended for such period as the Court thinks proper. Under the law as it stands to-day a bankrupt who, within three months before a receiving order, brings a frivolous or vexatious action is liable to have his discharge suspended. The period of three months is found to be too short as bankrupts are able to stave off the time of the receiving order, and therefore, by subsection (2) of this clause, it is proposed to abolish that time limit.
I need not dwell upon Clause 2, which is intended to make clear the effect of Section 33 of the Bankruptcy Act, the section which gives priority in bankruptcy for the wages or salary of any clerk or servant in respect of services rendered to a bankrupt during four months before the date of the receiving order. The clause provides that the same priority shall extend to wages which take the form of a commission. Clause 3 is somewhat complicated and I do not propose to go into its effect to-day. The most important effect of it is to make Section 39 of the principal Act apply where a second receiving order is followed by a composition or scheme of arrangement or administration in bankruptcy. The fourth clause of the Bill is intended for the protection of banks which pay the cheques of a bankrupt without having received notice of a receiving order. As the law stands they may in some cases be made liable for the amount, and it is not thought right entirely to discharge them from that liability, but the effect of the clause is that the trustee shall try, first, to recover the amount of the cheque from the person to whom it is paid and only if that fails is he to have his remedy against the bank.
Clause 5 relates to the fraudulent removal of property or destruction of property within six months before the presentation of a receiving order. It is felt that six months is too short and that an intending bankrupt may be able to stave off bankruptcy for more than six months and therefore go free. It is proposed to extend the period to twelve months. The second subsection of this clause dealts with the penalties for certain serious bankruptcy offences and makes the person guilty of these offences liable,
184
on conviction, to penal servitude for live years. This clause also makes the receiver of property fraudulently pledged or disposed of by a bankrupt liable, it he takes the property knowing it to have been obtained in circumstances amounting to a misdemeanour.
Clause 7 is important because it refers to a difficulty which has occurred in many fraudulent bankruptcies; that is, that the bankrupt has not kept proper books or accounts. The clause proposes to make a failure to keep proper books and accounts a criminal offence in the case of the first bankruptcy as well as in the case of a later bankruptcy. Certain safeguards are inserted, for the clause provides that the bankrupt shall not be convicted under this clause unless his total unsecured liabilities exceed£500 and also that he shall not be convicted if he proves that in the? circumstances in which he carried on the business the omission was honest and excusable. That affords a loophole for the honest trader or small farmer. Some notice must be given of this new liability to keep proper books of account and accordingly the clause is not to come into operation until two years after the commencement of the Act. Clause 8 extends the discretion of the Court as to ordering a prosecution, and Clause 9 repeals a section of the earlier Act, which (I am told) is never used. Clause 10 provides that a court of summary jurisdiction may give a sentence up to twelve months' imprisonment for an offence under the principal Act instead of the present maximum of six months.
These are, in substance, the provisions of the Bill. I have dwelt upon the most important of them. Some of them are technical, but they are in the main substantial and useful proposals directed to preventing fraud and encouraging honest trading. I shall be quite ready in Committee to reply to any questions that noble Lords may desire to ask, but I think that your Lordships will consider that the general trend of the proposals of the Bill does entitle it to receive a Second Reading to-day. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill consists of a series of detailed amendments of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914. It is not possible to come to any useful

185
conclusion about these amendments in detail without a much greater familiarity with The practice in the Bankruptcy Court than I possess and anything that I say and any conclusions that I come to must therefore be taken as provisional. On the statement, however, of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and on looking through the clauses of the Bill, these amendments seem to me to be reasonable amendments. They have the sanction not only of the bankruptcy officials but of the Committee of which the noble and learned Viscount spoke. In those circumstances I shall offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole house.

AGRICULTURAL POLICY.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the proposals contained in the White Paper on Agricultural Policy (Command Paper 2581); and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it appears to me that the terms of this Memorandum sufficiently show that the present Government have not succeeded either in initiating a constructive agricultural policy or—as appears to he their other alternative—in bringing about something in the nature of an agreement between all the parties concerned. For instance—if I may give an illustration at the start before I go through one or two of the more important provisions which are contained in the Memorandum itself—we have been accustomed to hear in this House considerable argument in favour of an increased arable cultivation of the land of the country. That has been put on two grounds: on the desirability of a larger number of persons living on agriculture and being interested in country life; and on the necessity of better provision in the case of a future war as regards the corn and food supply of this country. With the first of those ideas I am entirely in sympathy; as for the second, I should regard more favourably a provision to maintain peace than provisions which are merely aimed at security should war unfortunately break out.
But I need not go, nor do I intend to go into any question of that kind, because I find on the face of the
186
Memorandum a statement made on behalf of the present Government which shows that they reject the proposition concerning the encouragement of arable agriculture, whether founded upon one proposition or the other. They come to the conclusion, which has often been discussed in this House by successive Ministers of Agriculture in the- opposite sense—
"that no ease has been made out on defence grounds which would justify the expenditure necessary to induce farmers in time of peace to produce more than economic considerations dictate."
Accordingly they throw over once and for all the argument in favour of the extension of arable culture on the ground of defence, or purposes of defence, in the event of war breaking out. Then the Memorandum goes on to speak of various schemes for increasing arable culture in this country, and I find these words, with which I am entirely in accord:—
"None of these schemes could make the country self-supporting as regards bread-stuffs except at an impossible cost."
As I have told your Lordships on more than one occasion I entirely assent to that proposition, but it comes to me as a surprise that it should be advocated by the present Government in approaching its agricultural policy.
Shortly before the statements to which I have referred, the Memorandum states, quite accurately, the two objects which all of us have had in view in relation to an agricultural policy. I imagine that as regards the general proposition there will be no dispute. The dispute—but I will not call it a dispute because we all want to do our best for agriculture—the difference between us arises not on the general proposition but on the method by which it is considered practicable or otherwise to carry it out. The Memorandum touches upon this question in paragraph 4, which continues the argument of the preceding paragraph, but I should occupy the time of your Lordships at far too great a length if I attempted to read all the relevant passages. An earlier paragraph refers to increased production and greater employment. We all want that, and although I consider that greater employment is more important than increased production, the value of the latter cannot be gainsaid for a moment.
What does the Memorandum say as regards increased production and greater-employment? It says that they—

187
"would be secured by a large increase in the arable area."
I have already referred your Lordships to the passage which destroys the argument concerning the arable area, and it is further destroyed in the succeeding passage to that which I have read, a passage to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention. The Memorandum goes on to say that you cannot have this increased arable area, in effect for this reason: that it necessitates "the imposition of protective duties" or, in the alternative "the payment of some form of subsidy."
I believe that everybody is agreed, so far as you can be agreed in these matters, that it would be impossible, in a country like Great Britain with its enormous majority of industrial workers, to seek to impose a tax which, to be effective, would have to raise the price of food. What I rather wonder at is that the Party which appreciates the impossibility of a protective duty for agriculture has not appreciated the hardships on the agriculturists imposed by Protection in other directions. If there is one industry for which, logically, a case can be made out for protective duties on economic grounds it is obviously agriculture, especially if you look at the conditions of production in this country and, in particular, the extremely heavy burdens of rates and taxation at the present time. I am not advocating Protection for agriculture. I have always told farmers in my own district, many of whom have wanted it, that it is practically impossible. It is an unthinkable remedy having regard to the conditions in this country, but I did not know that the Conservative Party had rejected all possibility of Protection as a method of assisting agriculture in this country. I think it is particularly hard, if they have done so, that they should suggest Protection in other directions, Protection which, if effective, as it is intended to be, raises the cost to the agriculturists.
Now, to the other matter I do not feel the same fundamental objection. I do not know quite why it is that the paying of any form of subsidy has been rejected. It is said in the next portion of the paragraph that an effective subsidy would mean£20,000,000 a year.
LORD BLEDISLOE: £2 per acre on arable land.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. I think that is far too high an estimate, although, even as an estimate, it is loss than the amount which on a debt obviously due to us we have forgiven to a country which is said to be in an exceptionally prosperous condition. The amount is said to be£26,000,000 a year, and I have never heard any explanation of why that concession is made. Whether it is so or not, I think this is an altogether exaggerated estimate. If you have a subsidy limited, as it ought to be limited, to the poorer classes of land which cannot produce corn without a subsidy, I think the sum involved would be altogether less than the£20,000,000 which is suggested. I understand—the noble Lord has already called attention to the fact—that the estimate is made on the basis of£2 per acre on arable land and there are ten million arable acres in this country. That would be an altogether extravagant form of subsidy because a very large amount of the arable acreage in this country does not call for a subsidy at all and, although at a later stage it is pointed out that a difficulty arises in giving a subsidy owing to the different conditions under which agriculture is carried on in different places and on different soil?, I think that very fact shows that you would have to have careful differentiation and that if a subsidy were granted at all it would be of a very much less amount.
If one were to object to subsidies in that general form I do not think they are open to the same objection as the various subsidies already granted to which the agriculturist has to contribute. Take the coal subsidy. The conditions of coal mining are quite as different in different districts and different seams as are the conditions of agriculture in different places. It has not been found to be impossible to give a subsidy in that industry where, in the circumstances involved, it is deemed that assistance should be given. I am not suggesting either approval or disapproval of that subsidy, but I say that difference in conditions is not any reason why a subsidy should not be carefully placed upon the land which really requires it if we are to have arable cultivation in the future: and the more so because where you give these subsidies the agriculturist, who is the most hardly pressed industrialist in the country, has to pay his share in taxation of the amount involved.

189
There is one other matter—I do not want to use the word unnecessarily because it is like crying "Wolf"—but it is stated that if you have a subsidy you must have such an amount of supervision as would lead up to nationalisation. I do not agree with that at all if the supervision is again properly considered and properly imposed. I might use the analogy again—I do not know where it came from, but I can use it again—of the coal mines. Does anybody suggest that the coal subsidy necessarily leads up to nationalisation? That is the suggestion which is made, I think, in order to bring in a term which is not a popular term on the other side rather than for the purpose of relevant argument. The noble Lord uses two words. The first is a very rhetorical expression which means nothing. It is that the present Government, do not desire an agricultural policy which would be what he calls "drastic" or "spectacular." That is mere rhetoric, and in a, Memorandum of this kind when seeking to deal with a business matter it is poor rhetoric. You get no further by using expressions of that kind.
The expression is in paragraph 7 of the Memorandum:—
"In the view of the (Government, agriculture, of all the industries in the country, is the least adapted to drastic and spectacular action on the part of the State …."
I do not think "spectacular" is a very good word to apply to any industrial reform project, but if you are to apply it to any form of industrial reform I do not see why, in rhetorical words of that kind, there is any logical argument for excluding agriculture from the assistance to which it is otherwise entitled. A great deal of the Memorandum is far too rhetorical, and too much of it is taken up with phrases—I hope the noble Lord "will not think I am blaming him, but I do not know who is responsible for drawing up this document—which disguise, more or less, the real underlying business conditions which we have to consider. In paragraph 8 we come to the first of the provisions of a constructive character. It is extremly indefinite. It says it is better
"to proceed on the lines of education and encouragement rather than of coercion,"
We all agree with that as a general statement. I want to see how it is worked out. I put it to your Lordships that
190
there is no human business, so far as I know, to which you could not apply general words of that kind, and you will be no further after applying them than you were before.
When we come to specific matters I admit I want to consider them, I hope at not too great a length, before your Lordships' House. The first of them is credit. It is very essential, in my view, that you should get bettor credit for the agricultural industry, but this Memorandum gives no indication whatever of how that credit is to be obtained. I have seen in the newspapers that there is some suggestion of what is called a chattel mortgage as against a bill of sale on the stock of the farmer. I do not believe in either of those methods. It is obvious that a bill of sale, which has to be registered, seriously interferes with the farmers credit, but I doubt whether what is called a chattel mortgage would not interfere with it to an equal degree. It might not necessarily be registered, but it would certainly be known. It is really impossible under the conditions of farming in country life that any matter of that kind could be kept so secret: that in truth the farmer's credit would not be affected.
May I ask the noble Lord whether he has considered, and how far the Government have considered, a scheme which I myself some time ago explained to your Lordships' House? It is a scheme which has been found very effective, as I am told, both in Denmark and America. An agricultural worker in Denmark who was a University student was staying not very long ago with my bailiff at my farm. He was explaining to me the difference, particularly as regards credit, between the conditions in Denmark and the conditions in this country. It is almost impossible to obtain credit now in this country under the system of large banks, which merely have clerk agents in the different country towns, unless you are in a position to deposit Consol securities and all the rest of it. Credit of that kind is no good, except to the man who has got some security to give. And the security, in order to be of any advantage for giving credit to the young farmer, must be of a different kind.
This young farmer from Denmark came over to this country as part of his

191
University course to study conditions here. What he said was that if you can get two men of credit, two farmers with whom you have worked—because they work very hard there—to stand for you on the security of character you can get sufficient to start farming life in Denmark. I remember being told the same, though it was not so much in reference to agriculture, by the emeritus head of Yale University as regards the banking system in America. See what that means. A young man who, as part of his education, has been doing farm work and University work can obtain the credit he wants for a start in the farming industry if the man with whom he has worked and some other man who knows him will pledge themselves—not to give security for him but that they believe that he is a young fellow to whom it is right that credit should be given. I do not know all the conditions of banking in Denmark, but I was told that under that system there were practically no losses. Occasionally there is a loss in all businesses, but in this case there were practically no losses.
What I want to ask the noble Lord is whether he has in his mind any such system when he is talking of credit. I do not refer to credit to the landowner or in connection with the purchase of land, but credit in order that the agriculturist may have sufficient capital in his industry to give him every opportunity. There is no indication of what is meant in paragraph 9 of this Command Paper. The only words that I can find at all are the words "on a sound commercial basis for short-term credit." That, however, seems to be for improvements or for land purchase. A mere paper suggestion of this kind, without any further indication of what is meant, is of no practical value. Therefore I will ask the noble Lord, who, I know, has given great attention to these matters, and whose knowledge of the whole subject of agriculture we all recognise, whether, in considering this question of credit, he can tell the House what he means, and what has been the result of the consideration given to it by the Government and by the Ministry of Agriculture.
Paragraph 10 refers to the development of small holdings on sound lines. I am a great advocate of small holdings, but what does the Minister mean by "sound
192
lines." The whole point is in the epithet, and there is no indication of what is meant by "sound lines." The point is the more important because in another place a short time ago statistics-were published about small holdings between the years 1917 and 1924. What is the result of those statistics? I presume we may infer that those small holdings were not on a sound basis, because the expenditure in connection with them was£15,110,000, and, although no exact valuation so far had been made, the anticipated loss was 50 per cent., in other words, between£7,000,000 and£8,000,000, on what, after all, was a small experiment both as regards number and acreage. I want to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that those small holdings were constituted on sound lines. Let him tell those of us who are really interested in this question what are the sound lines referred to, which would enable small holdings to be developed without incurring losses of this kind.
I come to Paragraph 11, and there I find myself in a very pleasant condition. It is stated there, perhaps in a rather over-optimistic spirit, particularly as I see the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, in his place, that the position of the workers in agriculture is dependent on the relative prosperity of the industry as a whole and the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act. That was the Act passed by the late Government, an Act which I had the honour of promoting and superintending during its passage through this House, and I may pause for a moment to Bay that, although in many respects it was not in accord with the views of at any rate large numbers in this House, they gave it a friendly hearing. This Memorandum Says:
"The Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, which the Government are pledged to maintain—"
Quite right—
"ensures that the wages paid are the utmost that the industry can afford."
That is testimony to the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act of the late Government as high as could possibly be given. It was the object and purpose of that Act that wages should be as high as was economically possible, and I am glad to learn from a considered Memorandum of this kind that the Act has been so satisfactory that the present Minister of

193
Agriculture is able to say that about wages. I presume there is nothing more to be said at the moment by the present Government regarding the agricultural labourer. He was left under the late Government in a condition which ensured him the highest possible wages under the Wages Board. I should like to add my testimony to that of the noble Lord opposite that the Wages Board has acted fairly and admirably. Where it has acted within my knowledge there has never since been any trouble in the nature of friction about wages, or threats of strikes or anything of that kind. The whole machinery has worked smoothly and it is most encouraging to hear that it has ensured the utmost wages that the industry can afford.
I will not trouble your Lordships with paragraph 12 which deals with timber afforestation. I do not think that timber afforestation has much to do with the agricultural question. If I might sound a personal note, at one time I had a great deal of poor land in the Chiltern Hills when things were at their worst and the question of the afforestation of the district within my control was carefully considered, and I came to the conclusion that it would be an admirable thing financially but would mean the absolute ruin of the countryside. One village, if not two, would have been depopulated and there would have been practically no work for anyone after afforestation had been carried out. It is impossible to suggest that afforestation is any real measure of aid to agriculture in this-country. But, so far as afforestation is mentioned in the Memorandum I do not desire to say an adverse word at all. I think it is an advantage to districts which can be afforested if they arc carefully selected, but the effect of such an operation on the area concerned will not really influence the agricultural question on one side or the other. Afforestation may for a time give a certain amount of employment, but that is all.
The Memorandum also refers to drainage. Drainage, of course, is an advantage. Reference is also made to the question of a contribution over an area. I wonder what the noble Lord's experience has been of contributions over areas. It is all very well to talk about such a contribution, but the real question
194
is, what area? In Buckinghamshire we have had a severe and almost bitter contest, regarding a river drainage scheme, as to the area which ought to be included and as to which land will benefit and which will not. I may mention one matter in addition. The noble Lord will tell me if I am wrong because I have received the information from other sources and have not seen the actual figures myself, but I am told that the proposal here is to spend about£1,000,000 on drainage over a period of five years or about£200,000 a year. I am told also that until now a sum of no less than£640,000 a year has been devoted to drainage purposes. That sounds so out of accord with the Memorandum that I am in doubt whether I may not be wrong. If that is correct the proposals for the drainage scheme would not be in the nature of an extension, but a limitation.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am sorry, but I fear I must interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I think that the£640,000 he refers to was in connection with the unemployment scheme, and is meant to extend over three years and not one year only.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not in the least dispute what the noble Lord has said. I mentioned the figure given to me, and I take his explanation. I want to say further that if you are to have these drainage schemes, the thing is to take over the land in its unimproved condition and to carry the scheme through at the cost of the Government so that the Government will have the advantage of the improved land. In that, way a very large number of difficulties and dangers are escaped. It is absolutely fair, and it is a principle which, in my view, ought to be applied in a large number of cases of communal or State purchase. The land which it is expected to improve ought to be included in the purchase so that the advantage will accrue to the municipality or the State if their forecasts are accurate.
There is a rather ominous passage in paragraph 14 about which I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. It refers, first of all, to the increasing competition in our home markets of imported foodstuffs of steadily improving quality. If that is not the effect of Protection

195
but of natural competition, I have not a word to say against it. But it is a word of caution, and it shows that even in the meat markets and markets for other than the produce of arable land there is an increasing competition owing to the steadily-improved quality of these goods, Reference is then made to the question of markets, and the paragraph continues—
"…in this connection the Government propose to include home produce within the scope of any assistance that may be given to the marketing of Empire produce."
It would appear to be inconceivable that the Ministry of Agriculture should even suggest improvements in the marketing of Imperial produce which were not open to the marketing of home produce. I admit that I do not know to what the noble Lord was referring. What are the improvements in the marketing of Imperial produce that he refers to in paragraph 14? And what is his scheme for opening those improvements, as, of course, in fairness they must be opened, to the home producer?
On the extremely important question of education nothing more is said in the Memorandum than this, although one must be grateful for it: When the existing education grants come to an end they shall be made available again for education purposes. It appears to me, that education is one of the essential matters in the progress of our agricultural industry. I want to put it in two ways. First of all, there is the education which must be given if small holders and others are to enter upon this complicated industry with sufficient knowledge. There must be an end of the notion that any man, however ignorant, can undertake the duty of a farmer and succeed in the industry. Secondly, I want to call the noble Lord's attention to what is said about foot-and-mouth disease. I see present the noble Marquess who called attention to this matter some time ago. I was not wholly in accord with him, although he talked about pole-axing certain people, but I can understand his contention perfectly well. It really seems rather monstrous at this stage of scientific development that we have not some better system of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease than what I may call savage and brutal butchery. The real problem is to ascertain by the highest scientific knowledge how this plague can
196
be dealt with in the form either of prevention or cure.
When I had the honour of being Lord President of the Council in the late Government a considerable amount of the highest scientific work came within the powers of that Department. The noble Marquess will know from his experience that that is so. We took every step we could whilst I was at that Department to direct scientific research to this matter of ascertaining sufficiently the conditions of foot-and-mouth disease with a view to discovering some scientific amelioration which could prevent the spread of the disease. It is some time now since I have had any knowledge of the progress of that research, and I, therefore, desire to ask the noble Lord whether every effort is still being made to press forward that research, and whether there is any prospect of a successful result.
Your Lordships will be glad that I have nearly come to the end of the Memorandum. There is, however, one further word that I ought to say about foot-and-mouth disease, if I may do so. I have with me a resolution of the Buckingham farmers regarding a "Stand still Order." I know from my own experience the very heavy loss that is incurred when you have cattle kept in certain conditions on a farm by such an Order. It is a matter which ought to be dealt with by means of some form of compensation. I will read what was said at a meeting yesterday, according to The Times report to-day, of the Buckingham farmers in reference to the Order. I thoroughly agree with it, and I am speaking from personal experience. For a period of over four months at a critical time this year no beast could be moved from my farm. First, there was foot-and-mouth disease within the prescribed distance on one side near where the noble Marquess lives at Wycombe, then in the district on the other side it occurred and immediately these two outbreaks had been cured a "Stand still Order" came into force and stopped all further movement of every kind.
This is what is stated in the report in The Times of the Buckingham farmers' meeting:—
"At a meeting yesterday of the Buckingham Branch of the National Farmers' Union, a resolution was passed to the effect that owing to the serious loss sustained by agriculturists by the experiment of the

197
'Stand still Order,' in future no such Order shall be made in areas which are free from foot-and-mouth disease."
No doubt it is for the Ministry to determine whether that is possible. The Buckingham farmers then go on to say that if a "Stand still Order" is made under those conditions there should be suitable terms in it which would allow of the movement of cattle for the purposes of slaughter and matters of that kind. In the event of a "Stand still Order" becoming imperative in a free area immediate facilities should be granted to move animals direct from farm to farm by licence, and from the farms to the butcher.
That is a very important matter. It is almost a matter of starvation when you cannot move your cattle or your sheep from one field to another at certain times. I am willing that it should be left to the discretion of the Minister whether there should be a "Stand still Order," but when such an Order is promulgated there ought to be very careful provision to secure that interference with the agricultural industry is reduced to the least possible point. I am sure the noble Lord would not for a moment say that the interferences caused by a "Stand still Order" arc not of the most serious kind. They may be justified, but if so then provision ought to be made to reduce those interferences to a minimum, because otherwise the loss may be very great indeed.
The last point that I want to say one word about is the sugar-beet industry. I do not say the sugar-beet industry was initiated by Mr. Philip Snowden when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government, but the principle of it was stated by him in July, 1924. He said—
"The Government hove accepted the principle of Exchequer assistance for the sugar-beet industry."
That shows that the principle was accepted by the late Labour Government. It is quite true that it could not be carried out by them. Mr. Snowden himself pointed out that it required legislation, and for reasons which everyone knows it was not possible for the Government that initiated and accepted the principle to pass legislation giving effect to it, because its term of office ceased shortly after that date. When this question was discussed in another place, it was pointed out that in Felstead, in
198
Essex, on a factory which was being constructed, these words were posted up—
"No agricultural worker applying will be started. Any one starting and found to be a land-worker will be instantly dismissed."
Surely that is a monstrous notice to put up at works carried out in a country district like Essex. Why should not an agricultural labourer be allowed to have the advantage of an industry of this kind? His wages in Essex are about 28 s. a week while the wages of an ordinary man employed in the sugar-beet industry, with bonus, are 53 s. 6d.
The answer given in the other place was that the Minister of Agriculture could not help if. What I want to point out is that it ought to be helped. These factories are being constructed with Government money and with Government assistance. Is it credible, to say nothing of the word "creditable," that on work being carried out with Government money and under Government assistance, you should have a placard of that kind placing a disability on agricultural labourers, a disability that ought not to be placed on any worker in this country? Why should not the agricultural labourer have the advantage of better employment and increased wages, which would, no doubt, react upon and raise the rate of agricultural wages in the district? I hope that some step will be taken to see that such a notice is never again to be seen on premises or factories that are partly or wholly built either by public credit or public money.
I have asked the noble Lord a good many questions, but I have asked them not in an antagonistic spirit, although, so far as the Memorandum stands, it seems to me that if this is the best programme that can be devised by the Party which is in its essence the country party, and calls itself the farmer's friend, the future of agriculture appears somewhat dark and uncertain. I beg to move.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am lather surprised at the attitude taken by the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. I imagined that he was going to be an entirely hostile critic, and that I myself would be the friendly critic. My impression was that the Labour Party had only one remedy for agricultural depression and that was' the nationalisation of the land in the country.

199
But we arc glad to find that one of the leaders of the Labour Party in this House does not advocate that policy at all on this occasion. He has criticised the Government because he does not think the policy they put forward will be entirely a remedy for agricultural depression. Every noble Lord, I believe, will agree with that; you cannot expect to get a complete remedy at once.
In this White Paper it is said:
"There is a wide measure of agreement that a national agricultural policy should aim at securing the two following objects:—
"(1) That the land should yield its highest economic possibilities in the way of food for the nation, and
"(2) That it should furnish a reasonable basis of life and a reasonable livelihood to the greatest number of people."
It goes on to say, however, that there is little or no agreement between agriculturists and politicians. That has been our greatest difficulty in dealing with the agricultural question. When I was a member of the other House and wanted to look at questions from an entirely non-political point of view I was always met with this difficulty. It was said that one must look at the question from the political point of view, and consider how it would affect votes at the next Election. I hope His Majesty's Government will he able to set an example, especially after what has been said by the noble and learned Lord who represents the Labour Party in this House, and that in future agriculture will not be considered from the political point of view but from the point of view of what is best for agriculture itself and best for the nation as a whole.
The Government have come to certain conclusions after rejecting certain proposals. These proposals have been dealt with by the noble and learned Lord and I will not therefore go into any detail. The duty on imported corn has been ruled out. On this matter I rather agree with Lord Parmoor. I am a strong Free Trader, but I agree with him in saying that it is grossly unfair that whilst agriculturists have no Protection at all the present Government are protecting the manufacturers. There is the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and from time to time they introduce fresh legislation in order to protect the manufacturers. Before long, if the Government have their way, we shall be in the position that
200
everything agriculturists have to buy will have to be bought at the highest price and everything we have to sell will have to be sold in competition with goods which come in from abroad. That is very unfair. If you are to have Protection I think you should have Protection all round. Being a strong Free Trader I think we should be far better with Free Trade all round, but it is certainly unfair for the Government to introduce legislation which protects the manufacturers whilst the unfortunate agriculturist has to pay more for everything ho buys and has also to face the competition of foreign goods coming into this country.
I am also in agreement with much that was said by the noble and learned Lord on the question of subsidies. There is the coal subsidy to the miners and mining industry in aid of wages in colliery districts. It is an enormous sum, between£20,000,000 and£30,000,000, and if you are going to give a subsidy of that amount to agriculturists I am sure they will be very glad. The Government seem to have plenty of money when they are ready to give a subsidy of£200,000 to the Civil Service in order to provide sports grounds. This is really rather curious when we are told that there is no money available for a subsidy to agriculture. Let me mention another matter which I think is much more serious, and that is the subsidy which it is proposed to give to the Colonies of£1,000,000 a year in order to facilitate the marketing of their goods in this country. That is a subsidy to enable them to bring their goods to this country and be better able to compete with us in our own markets.
The question of this subsidy of£1,000,000 a year to Empire goods was raised by myself at the Council of the Chambers of Agriculture for England. At that moment the noble Lord who I see on the Cross Benches now was Minister of Agriculture and he asked me not to press the question too far. I consented, and it was shelved for the moment. I hope the noble Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary, will tell me what exactly is being done. All that the Advisory Committee suggest is that some subsidy should be given to those farmers who export pedigree stock. That is not the class of agriculturist who specially

201
require help, and I do not think it is going to be of much assistance to the Agricultural community. I should like Jo ask the Parliamentary Secretary what action the Government propose to take with regard to an equivalent contribution to the agricultural community in this country of the£1,000,000 a year which it is proposed to give on Empire goods; whether ho, is going to adopt the proposal of the Advisory Committee, or whether he has some other proposals for helping the agriculturists of this country to market their produce.
I notice also that any suggestion that a subsidy should be given to farmers to grow a larger amount of crop on the grounds of national defence has been turned down. I doubt whether that is a good policy. No subsidy should be given unless you can defend it on the grounds of national defence. A war may not come in our time, but in the same way as we pay a fire insurance on our house property so in the same way we can give a subsidy to agriculture on the ground of national defence in order to get corn stored. It may never be wanted but it can be defended on this principle. I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the resolution passed at the Central Chambers of Agriculture, of which, before he took his present office, he was a distinguished member. They say:—
"The Government should be urged to make a payment to producers under proper guarantees sufficient to induce them to hold a portion of their wheat crop in stock."
That would not be a very difficult or expensive arrangement for the Government to make, and certainly it would be very desirable and of great value in the event of war.
I should like also to deal shortly with the question of credit. Really, if you look at this White Paper, you will see in it a great many pious opinions with which to a large extent I agree and which I think very useful, but they are merely pious opinions and, when you boil the whole thing down, what it practically comes to as the forefront of the whole matter is the question of credit for farmers. What do they propose to do to give credit to farmers, cither long-term credit or short-term credit? As I understand the matter, long-term credit means giving an advantage to farmers which will enable them to buy their land. I am sure that
202
every noble Lord in this House regrets having to sell his land, but we know that to a large extent we are forced to do so, or else our successors will be forced to do so. Accordingly it is a great advantage that farmers should have credit to enable them to buy farms when they come into the market.
As I understand the proposal of the Government as regards short-term credit, it is that farmers shall get advances to pay for tenants' improvements and also, I suppose, to increase their stock and to look ahead in buying in a cheap market. The proposal is that joint stock banks should be set up in order to give credit upon crops or stock, and these joint stock banks seem to be in the position of agents in this matter, for there is to be a great central bank to make advances on mortgage for the purchase of farms. I understand that permanent improvements are also to be dealt with through the central bank, and I suppose that this will entirely supersede that very useful body, the Land Improvement Company, which has done such very valuable work in this country. In addition, therefore, to making advances through the joint stock banks and having the value of their knowledge and experience, you are to set up a great central bank of which the joint stock banks will be agents. That seems to be the intention of the. White Paper, but the noble Lord will, I hope, contradict me if I am wrong.
I should like to ask the noble Lord on what principle this central bank is going to be formed. Are there going to be directors, and, if so, will they be chosen in the usual way or are they to be nominated by the Government and in some way connected with the Government or with the Ministry of Agriculture? I notice that debentures are to be issued by this bank in order, I suppose, to get cheap money. Are we going to have any Government guarantee for the central bank that is to issue these debentures? I understand that the whole idea is that you are to get very much cheaper credit by having the central bank. I do not quite see how it is going to be done, unless it is going to be a Government bank entirely, for the banks are not going to work for nothing. The joint stock banks will wish to make a profit, and the central bank also will wish to make a profit, and I do not quite see—

203
perhaps the noble Lord will explain—how we are going to get a very much cheaper rate of interest for the farmer.
I cannot help wondering why the Government have not taken advantage of an existing Act of Parliament which seems to me to a very large extent to cover all that is wanted in regard both to long-term and short-term credit. I refer, of course, to the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, which was passed by my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire and which gives very great facilities for this very purpose. Section 19 (1) of this Act says:—
"Where the tenant of a small holding has agreed with his landlord for the purchase of the holding, the county council of the county in which the holding or any part of it is situate may, if they think fit, advance to the tenant on the security of the holding an amount not exceeding four-fifths of the purchase money thereof."
What more is wanted, except to extend this provision—that is to say, instead of taking a limit of 50 acres, as is done under the Act, to increase it to 100 or 200 or 300 acres? Why not do this and allow the county council to make these advances? In my own county, which is fairly economically managed, we have only a very small debt at the present moment, and certainly we can borrow money quite as cheaply as any Government Department can borrow. Accordingly we could quite easily made advances if we had the power to do so to enable these men, as is so desirable, to buy their holdings, whether small or large. If the tenant of a holding can get four-fifths of the purchase money advanced to him by the county council he will be in a very much better position than if he has it advanced by any central bank set up by the Government.
Then I come to the question of short-term credits. The House may wish me to say what I think on that point. I do not see why we should not apply in this matter the Act of Parliament to which I have just referred. As I have said, the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, was responsible for it, and, I think with great foresight, he not only dealt with long-term credits enabling farmers to buy through the county councils but also made arrangements, such as those which the Government attempt to supply through a central bank or through joint stock banks acting as their agents for the provision
204
of short-term credits. Section 49 (1) of that Act says:—
"A county council may promote the formation or extension of, and may, subject to the provisions of this section, assist, societies on a co-operative basis, having for their object, or one of their objects, the provision or the profitable working of small holdings or allotments, whether in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking, or insurance, or otherwise, and may employ as their agents for the purpose any such society as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section."
That seems to cover the whole of the points raised in this White Paper, which, instead of working through the county council, proposes to work through the central bank and the joint stock banks. I have made inquiries of the County Councils' Association and I find that six counties have already made use of this section. I think it is very desirable that much greater use should be made of it.
Next I should like to ask the noble Lord why it is proposed to repeal Section 2 of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923. I cannot quite understand why that is desired. The only reason that I can think of is that it has not been acted upon. That section of the Act of 1923 deals with the organisation of agricultural credit societies by the Ministry of Agriculture, and it is further provided that a Report should be laid annually before both Houses of Parliament of the Minister's proceedings under this section. I have made inquiries and I cannot find that the Ministry of Agriculture has ever made any Report on this matter. I suppose the answer that I shall get from the noble Lord will be that no Reports have ever been drafted, but I do not think that this is a sufficient reason, for when an Act of Parliament says that a Report is to be made a Report ought to be made, even if nothing has been done, simply to say what has happened. It seems to me that it is undesirable to repeal this section, which enables the Minister of Agriculture to take steps to promote the formation and extension of agricultural credit societies. That seems to be a very desirable provision, but apparently nothing has been done in this matter. The House will probably remember that some time ago, when the Agricultural Organisation Society came to an end, the National Farmers' Union took over the work. Perhaps the Parliamentary

205
Secretary will tell me whether the National Farmers' Union are doing anything at all in that direction.
I will say nothing more, except that I think that what agriculturists would like more than anything else, what they think would relieve their burdens and promote their prosperity, is that the Government should go on doing the good work that they began regarding agricultural rates. A previous Conservative Government brought in an Agricultural Rates Act in 1923, which paid half the rates of the farmers, and was varied from year to year, unlike the Act, passed also by a Conservative Government in 1896, which only paid a fixed sum, the consequence being that it does not entirely meet the agricultural rates. It has the great disadvantage that the difference has to be made up not only upon agricultural land but also upon houses and buildings, which causes a great deal of friction and heartburning. I agree it is very desirable that farmers should have credit, but I think that if you wish to do what the farmers really want you should free the land from all local rates and treat it as being the raw material of the farmer, just as the raw material of the manufacturer is not rated for local purposes. I hope that before this Government comes to an end they will very seriously consider the matter and place agriculturists in the position of not having to pay local rates on their raw material.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I could not help thinking when listening to Lord Parmoor's speech, that his criticism of the White Paper that parts of it contained rhetorical phrases which meant nothing in particular, might have been applied to parts of his own speech. I could not follow his criticism of paragraph 5 of the Paper, because it looks facts in the face and states common sense deductions from those facts. I think he under-rated the value of the credit proposals of the Government. Credit schemes on sound commercial lines might be of great value to farmers. It is well known that there are many who get long credit from manure merchants and auctioneers on the understanding that they market their produce, whether stock, corn or wool, through them, and I do not believe those
206
farmers have the vaguest idea of what the accommodation which they receive is costing them, and still less do they know what they lose by the surrender of their liberty in regard to marketing their produce. I am afraid, however, that any improvement of that sort will be slow in operation. I remember that during the War agricultural committees were empowered by the Government to offer credits on somewhat similar lines to farmers who needed them, but in our experience the only people who applied to us were wasters, who had exhausted their credit in every other quarter and hoped to get hold of some Government money.
I welcome the extension of the provision of small holdings which is indicated—the limitations at present in force cause a good many deserving men to be disappointed—but I think the arrangement suggested for helping agricultural workers to buy their own cottages and a few acres of land, although an object which should be received with all sympathy, will nevertheless require a certain amount of consideration. The thing will answer very well as long as the worker has health and is able to work, but when be gets old, and still more if he dies and leaves a widow, perhaps of advanced age and in feeble health, it will be a matter of considerable difficulty to provide for the upkeep of the building, and there will be a certain risk of the outstanding instalments, if there are any due to the Government, not being met. It is the upkeep of the cottages owned by people of that sort which I think presents the greatest difficulty. I remember when the Pensions Act was first introduced that I worked on one of our local committees, and to ray great surprise I found people qualified to receive old age pensions—a certain number of them—who were owners of cottages. Of course the cottages only brought in£4 or£5 a year, but the condition of cottages of that sort is apt to be lamentable. That is not a thing to be overlooked in legislation dealing with the subject.
While we all welcome, I think, anything which improves the condition of the agricultural labourers. I deprecate the way in which certain politicians assume that such men have no outlook and no future in life. It is a matter upon which statistics are probably very difficult to get, and evidence

207
covering any considerable area will be difficult to come by, but I am inclined to believe that there are few occupations in which more people rise from the ranks than is the case in agriculture. I know enough to be aware that what is true of one county may be only half true of the next, and quite untrue of the next but one, but I should be surprised if there were many parishes in the whole country in which there is not at least one farmer who has risen from the ranks. Some years ago I made inquiries about my own tenants in Devon and Somerset and I found, to my surprise, that the number of ex-labourers occupying farms on the estate was greater than the number of men who were grandsons of farmers. The ex-labourers did not hold as much land as the others, but they were occupying something over one hundred acres apiece on the average, and I know of an estate in Wiltshire where out of eighty-nine holdings forty-one are occupied by ex-labourers or the sons of labourers.
It may be true that these cases are exceptional, but until I am satisfied that they are exceptional I shall not be convinced to the contrary by mere bare assertion. The experience of the small holdings committee, where you have to investigate the resources of applicants for small holdings, certainly confirms what I have said. I have sat on a small holdings committee, and even in the days before the War, when 16 s. was a full wage in our county, I have had cases of labouring men giving positive proof that they possessed£150, and£200, and even£300. There is nothing to be gained by misleading the public on matters of this sort or by depreciating British farming in the way that is fashionable in some quarters.
Undoubtedly there is a percentage of land badly done and under-farmed. It may be 5 per cent., or 15 per cent., or 20 per cent.—I do not suppose anybody really knows with any accuracy which is the correct figure. In a certain number of cases there are extenuating circumstances: the man is very old, or has bad health, or has had family trouble. But there are a certain number which are simply cases of idleness and inefficiency, and I think we should all be willing to deal drastically with them, but the action of the Legislature in requiring compensation for disturbance does not make it easy, and the interpretation which agricultural committees give to the definition
208
of bad husbandry does not make it any less difficult.
But, notwithstanding the under-farming, whether it is limited or widespread, I do not believe our methods on the whole are as bad as they are represented to be. There is a table on page 201 of a book issued by the Land Agents' Society, I think in 1912, which gives a comparison of the produce per acre of this country and of other European countries, and Great Britain stands in front of all except only the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark. And Professor MacGregor, who is supposed to be a great authority in these matters, gives to England almost the same figure of merit in regard to produce per acre as he assigns to Denmark. No doubt Sir Thomas Middleton, in his well known Report on German agriculture, shows that Germany can feed 75 persons per 100 acres, while England car; only feed between 45 and 50. That has attracted a great deal of attention, but much less attention has been given to another table a little further on in the same Report, where he shows that every permanent worker on the land here feeds ten persons, while the permanent workers in Germany only feed six persons apiece. And so it would be just as easy to criticise the Germans for not making full use of their labour as it is to criticise our fanners for not making full use of their land.
I do not think the public appreciate sufficiently the difference of system in this country and in tome of the countries with which our agriculture is compared. Whether intentionally or by accident we have gone in for getting a big output per worker, rather than a big product per acre, and we have been tolerably successful. It may be that to-day, when there is much less employment to be got in industry, and when the balance of trade is only just on the right side, and it is difficult to pay for our imports of food, we ought to go in for a. different policy, and to seek rather the maximum of employment on the land, even if all those employed did not turn out as much food per head as they do in existing circumstances. Very likely that is the policy we ought to aim at, but I doubt very much if much progress can be made in that direction under the nostrums of either the Labour Party or of Mr. Lloyd George.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, the two noble Lords who initialed this debate have covered an extremely wide field. Of course, I admit that almost anything concerning agriculture is relevant on a discussion of the White Paper, but in the circumstances if I fail to afford full satisfaction to my noble friends in my reply it is because I cannot do justice to all the topics covered by the White Paper, at least in detail, in the course of a single speech, and I should certainly try your Lordships' patience if I attempted to do so. What, I am bound to say, puzzled me most, as I listened to my noble friend Lord Parmoor on the one hand and Lord Strachie on the other was how they managed to reconcile their somewhat bigoted Tory outlook on land questions with the proclaimed principles and programmes of the Parties to which they respectively belong. When the noble Lord opposite offers criticisms upon this White Paper, I should naturally fed justified in assuming that, for the purposes of to-day's debate at least, he was representing the views of the Party to which he belonged. But, having studied with some considerable care the literary output of the Committee of his Party which deals with these land questions, I must confess that I can see little or no resemblance between the views expressed by him to-day and those which we are led to believe are the views of the official Labour Party.
The noble Lord presented his criticism of the White Paper very largely in the form of what I can only call verbal comments upon the verbiage of the document which he sought to criticise. Ho certainly told us that we had not succeeded in initiating any constructive policy, and upon that point I must leave your Lordships to form a considered judgment. His second point was that we had not effected any agreement between the parties concerned with the conduct of the industry. As regards that second criticism I am bound to say that I, like my noble friend with whom I was associated as my chief throughout the whole of last year, am profoundly sorry that it was found impossible to bring together that conference, which he himself suggested on behalf of His Majesty's Government, so as to obtain from the agricultural
210
community itself, through its accredited representatives, what we hoped might be agreed proposals upon which we might found a. policy which would be acceptable to all alike. It is common knowledge that that proposed conference fell through owing to the inability or the unwillingness of one of the two agricultural workers' unions to come into the conference. That conference having failed, it was obviously up to the Government to formulate an agricultural policy as best it could, with such advice from various organisations, representing different branches of the agricultural industry, as was available.
The noble Lord opposite referred specifically to the proposed increased arable area, which admittedly we were stressing last year—a question of importance from the point of view of national defence in time of war— in reference to which he suggested that we had abandoned our original contention; and, secondly, the contention that we ought to be self-supporting in the matter of bread-stuffs. I want to assure your Lordships' House that the present Government have lent themselves to neither of these contentions which we arc said to have abandoned. In regard to national defence, it is now more or less common knowledge that the Government, after referring this matter not for the first time to the Committee of Imperial Defence, have not felt justified in recommending any artificial financial assistance to the agricultural industry on this ground. It would not be prudent, even if it were possible for me, to examine this problem further. But whatever platform politicians may have said, we at any rate have never suggested, because we know it would be impracticable, that this country should seek to be self-supporting in the matter of its food supplies either in bread-stuffs or even in the supply of meat and milk.
The noble Lord referred to paragraph of the White Paper in expressing agreement with our contention that we cannot have a materially increased arable area except with the help of protective duties or subsidies, and said in that connection—
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord will excuse me, but I did not say that. I said that was what the Memorandum said.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am prepared to accept that. It is what the Memorandum says, and I doubt whether even the noble Lord would dispute it.
LORD PARMOOR: That was my statement.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Lord said, and again I emphatically agree with him, that if you are going to protect any industry at all the case for protecting the agricultural industry is logically at least as strong as, if not stronger than, the case for any other British industry. He has admitted that under existing conditions and in view of the great predominance of the urban communities in this country it is politically impracticable, at any rate at present; and that, surely, is a complete answer to any suggestion that we should adopt either of those methods to ensure a larger arable area.
The noble Lord seems to flirt with the idea of a subsidy for the encouragement or development of the agricultural industry, and he suggested that instead of following such a recommendation as that of the National Farmers' Union which is referred to in this paragraph—that is to say,£2 on every arable acre—the subsidy should be limited to the poorer classes of land. I should like to ask who is to decide which land is sufficiently poor to receive such a subsidy? If any such attempt were made I am sure it would lend itself to very severe political pressure and a very large amount of undesirable log-rolling. The noble Lord referred also to the possible parallel of the coal subsidy. The coal subsidy was to meet an emergency and was of a purely temporary character. If any sort of subsidy is to be provided as part of the permanent agricultural policy of this country it is obvious it must be of a permanent character and that, surely, is the great distinction between such subsidies as the noble Lord referred to and that proposed for the agricultural industry.
In his general preliminary observations the noble Lord complained of this White Paper as being too rhetorical. I do not know whether he wishes to lay any emphasis upon that, but for my part I feel some satisfaction—not self-satisfaction because I am not responsible for it—and departmental pride in the extremely skilful language in which this Report is
212
framed and presented to the country, a matter upon which there has been a considerable amount of laudatory comment and as to which we in our Department feel somewhat flattered.
Turning to the real contents of this White Paper, the first subject to which the noble Lord referred—and I am bound to admit at once that, it is a very complicated subject—is that of agricultural credits. The Government believe, and it is accepted I think in every agricultural country in the world, that one of the greatest needs of the agricultural industry is the provision of adequate credit facilities upon reasonably favourable terms. Owing to the heavy taxation, especially the Death Duties, landowners to an increasing extent are less able to supply their tenants with the credit needed for permanent improvements. This is not, as Mr. Lloyd George would have us believe, an argument in favour of the abolition of landlords, who, with their lessened resources, still do a great deal to maintain the standard of agriculture in this country. But agriculture to-day is notoriously an under-capitalised industry, and the particular relation of credit to agriculture is a special one, because, on the one hand, of the constitution of the industry as a system of production organised on a one-man unit basis and, on the other, of the comparative slowness of its industrial turnover.
In all progressive agricultural countries abroad agricultural credit is very highly developed. We find it in Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Hungary and in most other countries of the world. The Government are impressed with the importance of this subject and are giving it special consideration with a view to evolving two different and separate systems of agricultural credits; long-term credits for the purpose of land purchase, and credits for the provision of necessary improvements and equipment. In regard to long-term credits, we cannot disguise from our minds the fact that land has been changing hands considerably, passing, that is to say, from the hands of the old landowners into the hands of those win were formerly tenant farmers. That process is continuing and, as we believe, is likely to continue. The banks have lent very considerable sums of money and, speaking generally, are ready to advance

213
money upon the security of the land which is being purchased by the farmers. But the process locks up a very large amount of capital which under other conditions the banks would naturally desire to use for ordinary industrial purposes. When the ordinary industries are crying out for capital the one element, of success in banking, and the element which is important, is the fluidity of capital.
We realise that the time is coming, if it has not already arrived, when it will be unfair to ask the banks to lock up any very large amount of the capital available to them in financing the purchase of agricultural land, or in the execution of improvements on agricultural land on the part of the farmer-owners. As your Lordships are aware, in form to-day the ordinary advance by a bank to its customers is for six months only. It is perfectly true that these advances are regularly renewed in the case of all creditable borrowers, unless the money is urgently required in some other direction, but we, at any rate, feel that we should be doing a benefit to the banking community on the one hand and to the farmers on the other, if we take steps to provide some system of long-term credit on the lines of what is being done in other countries, particularly Central European countries, in the formation of a central land bank.
I may say at once, because I do not want to be misunderstood, that the Government have no definite scheme to put before Parliament to-day in relation either to long-term credit or short-term credit. They are in negotiation with the joint stock banks, and, realising the enormous value of the joint stock banks to the industries of this country, they would rather make them the channel for Government activities in this respect than attempt to formulate some independent credit scheme and carry it through by their own agency. A Report upon agricultural credit has recently been published, and I would strongly recommend your Lordships to peruse it if you have not already done so. It is issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, and is the work of Mr. Enfield, who has proved himself to be not only a most industrious worker at the subject, but a most skilful and convincing exponent of it. That Report is under discussion with the bankers to-day.
214
Perhaps, so far as long-term credit is concerned, a central bank should be established, the object of which would be to make long-term mortgages through the joint stock banks and their branches, and to raise money for the purpose by the issue of debentures to the public. The central bank would also be empowered to handle intermediate credit business, by which is meant credit for the provision of improvements, the erection of buildings, the execution of drainage, and so on. But in that connection I should like to assure Lord Strachie—I think it was Lord Strachie who referred to the work of the Land Improvement Company—that we shall certainly take no steps which would in any way injure or stand in the way of the valuable work which the Land Improvement Company have done in this connection for the last fifty years or more.
As regards short-term credit, the position is much more difficult, and I am bound to say that it would certainly be premature on my part if I were to tell your Lordships that anything in this connection has been even approximately settled. But, as I think Lord Fortescue testified just now, it cannot be denied that there are cases where the small producer in this country, owing to lack of adequate facilities in the matter of credit, is unable to tide over that period between the sowing of his crops or the purchase of his stock and the time that he harvests the one or realises the other. There are cases in which the small producers have found themselves in extreme difficulty by depending upon such assistance as the local dealers, merchants and others have found it possible to afford them. Let me say, in passing, that I have no criticism to make of such men. They have, in attempting to meet the requirements of the small cultivator, to consider their own interests, which are not necessarily the best interests of the cultivators themselves.
There are cases in which, as your Lordships may be aware, seeds, fertilizers, feeding stuffs, and other raw-materials of the industry are provided by these middlemen interests, if I can so describe them, on the condition that the small cultivators' stock or produce is realised through them. They, of course, naturally want to realise this produce when the values of it are low. Obviously,

215
it is in the interest of the producer to realise the produce when the values are high. In that connection, as in others, the small cultivator is often very severely handicapped. We do not tie ourselves to the idea of a chattel mortgage, but we are able to point out that the chattel mortgage for the purposes of helping this class of person to tide over this temporary or seasonal difficulty is in operation, and successful operation, in countries such as the United States of America, Germany, and, notably, in New Zealand, and we are exploring the system' as conducted in each of these countries in the hope that we may be able to learn something useful. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor) said, as I understood him, that there was no difference between a chattel mortgage and a bill of sale.
LORD PARMOOR: There is a difference between them, but it is only that one is registered and the other is not registered. That does not make much difference.
LORD BLEDISLOE: As a matter of fact both would be registered, and Both usually are registered. But the material question is not the registration of the transaction or the document, but its publication.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought it would be practically published in either case.
LORD BLEDISLOE: There is no doubt that in the case of the bill of sale it is published, and undoubtedly it does stand in the way of the borrower obtaining further credit in other directions, but in the case of the chattel mortgage the suggestion is that it should be registered and should be accessible to the bankers, but not to outside interests and to outside persons, except with the consent of the borrower. Perhaps I am going too fully into these matters, because they are referred to in the Report and are not matters that are included specifically in the Government policy as disclosed in the White Paper. Let me make it perfectly clear that the Government have definitely decided against any protective tariffs or permanent subsidies for the agricultural industry. Tariffs are barred by our Election pledges, and the state of the
216
national finances renders subsidies impossible, even if they were desirable.
We venture to think, or at least I venture to think, that both tariffs and subsidies are intrinsically undesirable. They make the farmer rely upon the action of Government rather than upon his own initiative, and they often bolster up an uneconomic form of industry. The history of agricultural subsidies in recent years has been most unfortunate. Those that were given by Mr. Lloyd George's Government under the Agriculture Act of 1920 were repealed within twelve months, with most unsettling effects upon the whole agricultural industry. But a subsidy upon arable land would have to be very large if it was to have any material effect in extending the arable area, and would have to be accompanied, undoubtedly, by some form of Government control. Even if the present Government were inclined to make it a very gentle control it- is difficult to believe, judging by their public pronouncements, that the Party opposite would not make it a very drastic control and a control which would not be by any means acceptable to the farming community. We think, judging by all the evidences we get of farming opinion on this matter, that farmers generally would rather have no control and no subsidy than a subsidy with control.
Speaking shortly, the Government policy is directed to helping farmers to help themselves and at the same time to protect them from continuous reversals of policy. Such reversals of policy breed insecurity, and what agriculture requires more than anything else is stability. Stability cannot be assured as long as the agricultural policy of a Party is in danger of being scrapped by its immediate successors. There is no paragraph in the whole of this White Paper which I desire more strongly to emphasise than paragraph 3, or rather the last sentence of paragraph 3, which says that it is the duty of the Government to bear in mind
"the fundamental importance of protecting the industry from the danger of sharp reversals of national policy."
I must crave your indulgence while referring to one or two of the other matters to which several noble Lords have alluded. The noble and learned Lord opposite twitted us with speaking

217
of small holdings on sound lines. We lay great stress on the expression "sound lines."
LORD PARMOOR: I asked what it meant.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble and learned Lord incidentally referred to the very considerable loss which has undoubtedly been suffered in respect of what I may call the post-War small holdings scheme. We admit it, we regret it. But we anticipated it, and we deprecate very much the undoubted value of the small holdings movement being judged by the abnormal experience through which we have been passing in the attempt to settle ex-Service men on the land. The loss is undoubtedly great, but we see no reason in the light of pre-War and more normal experience to anticipate any material loss over the small holdings policy upon which we are now about to embark. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that if it cannot be made absolutely self-supporting the amount of Government support will be only comparatively larger than was found necessary in the case of the pre-War small holdings which were started on the initiative of the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire. Under Lord Lincolnshire's scheme no fewer than 14,000 small holdings were constituted, and most of the settlers have done well and have survived the difficult period through which we have lately passed. The percentage of failures has amounted to no more than 4 per cent., which I think your Lordships will agree is a very creditable record and will bear favourable comparison with the fate of the larger land occupiers of the country.
It is, I think, material in this connection to remind your Lordships that although the proportion of small holdings in this country is. by no means small, we have not taken quite the amount of pains to develop the small holdings movement in this country, in view of the great national importance of having a larger number of small men occupying agricultural land, as has been taken in most other countries. In Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany and France, there has been a deliberate policy to increase this class of land cultivator to the greatest possible extent. It is the obvious way of maintaining a rural population;
218
it involves the promotion of physical vigour, productivity, social ideals, and, above all, the provision of employment. It is noticeable that many persons, when speaking of small holdings, throw doubt upon their effect upon the rural population and upon the productivity of the small holdings movement All the figures we possess go to show that you can expect, as the result of a sound scheme of email holdings—where the small holdings are allotted to men who have sufficient capital and agricultural experience—the rural population to be materially increased and the agricultural output increased to a still greater extent. I wish I had the time as I should like to have given this House some remarkable figures which have been put into our hands by the Scottish Board of Agriculture in this connection, but I do not wish to bore your Lordships.
LORD OLIVIER: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is the intention of the Government to revive the policy of the noble Marquess's Act of 1908?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Speaking generally it is proposed to proceed upon the basis of the Act of 1908 but to elaborate it on slightly more generous lines. We do not profess, I am speaking quite frankly, to be able to make our new small holdings scheme absolutely self-supporting as was found to be possible in the scheme of the noble Marquess. Your Lordships will realise that the costs of equipment and building, and the cost of fencing, are still high relatively, and we have to take those considerations into account before we can promise to make a scheme of normal small holdings to such an extent self-supporting as was the case before the War. I want to make it perfectly clear that, whatever may have been done under the small holdings scheme for ex-Service men, we do not propose to allow small holdings to be constituted indiscriminately, without reasonable regard to marketing facilities or with any-undue interference with the holdings of sitting tenants. Where it is possible, we propose to try to acquire vacant farms and estates which have come into the market. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that nothing could be more unfair than a policy of taking the plums

219
out of any holding to the detriment of the sitting tenant and thereby creating an immense amount of quite justifiable criticism and indignation on the part of the general farming community.
What we do hope to do in our new scheme of small holdings is to encourage to a larger extent what is called in foreign countries peasant proprietorship, or the occupation of small holdings by persons who will become in due course the owners of those holdings. We believe that this is one of the factors by which we can create much greater stability in the countryside and a very much better foundation for the co-operative system than is found under a purely landlord-tenant system. Wherever co-operation is a vital force in agriculture in any part of the world you may be quite sure that there is a peasant proprietorship behind it and, for that if for no other reason, we endeavour, without putting a premium upon occupying ownership, to give it every encouragement. As regards the other matters of which the noble Lord spoke, he referred to drainage and asked what area will come to be assessed, if I understand him aright.
LORD PARMOOR: I pointed out the difficulties which always arise in considering what area is to be assessed.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am not quite sure from that interpellation whether the noble Lord wants me to answer any question in relation to it.
LORD PARMOOR: I wanted to know what your proposal was.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not propose, if the noble Lord does not object, to go into any detail upon drainage, because a Drainage Bill is now before your Lordships' House and I shall have to refer to this matter in moving the Second Reading.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I can only say—and I am sure that the noble Lord will agree—that there is probably no more serious impediment to maximum production in this country than the defective drainage of agricultural land. There is no doubt that some sixty years ago a large number of the drains that were then laid were laid too deep and too far apart and that
220
a good deal of the land that was then drained is now to some extant waterlogged. The Bill which is now before your Lordships' House clothes existing drainage authorities with more extensive powers over the whole of a watershed— and a watershed would naturally be the proper area for a drainage scheme—and also gives powers of a similar character to the county councils where such drainage authorities do not already exist. The noble Lord referred very particularly to marketing, and he asked me what was intended by the reference to the improvement in imported foodstuffs.
LORD PARMOOR: And its application. They say that it is to be applied to the farmers. What will be the method of its application?
LORD BLEDISLOE: What is really intended by this reference to the improvement in quality of imported agricultural produce is that these exporting countries—such countries as Denmark, Sweden, Holland, the Argentine and New Zealand, in the matter of dairy produce—are all laying themselves out, as your Lordships know, to capture the best food market in the world, which is the British food market, and, in order to do so, are organising export on the footing of good-quality produce of uniform description, and it is this uniformity, at least as much as the quality, which is proving to be a very severe handicap to agricultural producers in this country.
The result of it can be seen in the published figures relating to imports. The imports of food into the United Kingdom for home consumption were in 1913 of the value of£211,000.000. The imports for 1024 were of the value of£423,000,000, and that excludes the Irish Free State, as the previous figure did not. The figure for 1925 is no less than£431,000,000, again excluding the Irish Free State. As this House knows, we could at least boast before the War that we were feeding our home population predominantly upon home-raised meat. Unfortunately we cannot make that boast now. Before the War from 45 per cent, to 50 per cent, of the meat that we consumed was imported meat. At the present time no less than 60 per cent, of the meat that we consume comes from abroad—17 per cent, from British Possessions and 43 per cent, from foreign countries.

221
When the£1,000,000—the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, referred to this—provided last year in order to assist marketing of Empire produce is spoken of, it should be remembered that there is plenty of margin, when you hear in mind these relative figures, for encouraging the sale in this country of Dominion produce in preference to that which comes from the Argentine and other foreign countries. A very striking feature of the more recent importation figures shows that fresh meat, particularly veal and pork, is coining to a large and increasing extent from Holland and other countries, and not only chilled and frozen meat. The quantity of bacon, ham and fresh pork imported in 1913 was 328,000 tons, or 52 per cent of the total supply; in 1924 it amounted to no less than 535,000 tons or 66 per cent. of the total supply; and all this is very largely due to the enormous care which is being taken both by Governments and producers abroad to provide what the British market wants in the matter of meat.
LORD OLIVIER: May I ask the noble Lord a question? The ideas of the Government are not very clearly expressed here. What are the noble Lord's ideas for improving the quality of home produce? In all these countries it is done by Government inspection and by standardisation. What are his ideas for this country?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, will not press me al the present moment, because the whole of this matter is under quite serious consideration; but if it is not an inapt quotation, and applying a Latin word as meaning competitor, we do believe in the quotation Fas est et ab hoste doceri. We are quite open to borrow lessons from other countries, especially those countries which are successful in competing with ourselves. I am sure I have addressed your Lordships long enough, but I am not sure that I have referred to everything of which Lord Parmoor has spoken. I was rather surprised to hear him to sonic extent depreciate, as I believe, the value of afforestation.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not depreciate it. I said it had very little bearing on the agricultural question generally.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I will take that last remark because it is a better peg on which to hang what I was going to say. The noble Lord says that afforestation has very little bearing on the agricultural question generally. His leader, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, took occasion to say, in an important speech on land policy which he made in December last, that if the small holdings movement and land settlement were to be an economic success, it was most important that they should in every case be associated with a scheme of afforestation. That shows that opinions on these matters are not altogether identical, even within the limits of the executive of a great Party. We, however, do believe with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald that to some extent afforestation is an important element, in certain areas at any rate, in making small holdings a success. But I do not want to speak on the subject to-night, because there are others better able to do so, and notably Lord Clinton. I wish to say, however, that I think we owe a great deal to the Forestry Commission for the very valuable work which they have done in the last few years. They really are, if I may use a common phrase, "getting an effective move on" in this connection, and providing for the nation what is likely to prove a most valuable capital asset in days to conic, particularly in the event of any national emergency.
I only want to ask noble Lords to be good enough to look carefully through this White Paper, and to note all the various items that are referred to, and to extend to us such sympathy as they can in our efforts to make this scheme a success, because it is in no Party spirit that we put this scheme forward. What we do want, if we can, is in a modest way to lay thereby the foundation of some permanent agricultural policy for this country. It would be unfair, no doubt, of me to refer to the so-called agricultural policies of the ether two Parties. They do not appear to be settled in either case. I believe one of them is now tinder discussion, and possibly excited discussion, at a conference under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, and what the policy of the other Party is at the moment we do not know, but we understand that a fresh edition is likely shortly to be issued. What we do ask is that we shall not be expected to put forward a policy which

223
is unfair, and, as we think, grossly unfair, to any section of the agricultural community, which might be regarded as robbing a man, or a class of men, of what is lawfully their own, and so striking a blow, as we believe that the much trumpeted-policy of Mr. Lloyd George is calculated to strike a blow, at the whole basis of property in this country. When I use the word "property" I do not confine it to land, because, land being the basis of all wealth, you cannot do an injustice to the owner of land without in the long run affecting the owners of all kinds of property.
What we fail to understand is how this policy, as so far enunciated, is going to provide any material benefit for the agricultural community, or result in a greater output of food, or in a larger agricultural population. We do not overlook the national importance of the best possible use being made of the agricultural land of this country, in the interest both of food production and of national physique, and we propose to provide every possible inducement, encouragement and educational equipment, with this end in view. But we believe that any attempt to dragoon, or even drastically to control, the agricultural community, would defeat its own ends and destroy those elements of confidence and enterprise without which progress is impossible.
No industry lends itself less to Government administration and control, for none depends more upon the initiative, judgment and resourcefulness of those engaged in it. The salvation of British agriculture is not to be achieved by platform hysterics, spectacular Party crusades, or revolutionary land programmes. There is nothing drastic, nothing revolutionary, nothing spectacular, about our proposals. They are not likely to catch the votes of the more ignorant electors, and are all the more meritorious on that account. They are the genuine attempt of a constructive character to lay the foundations of a more prosperous and contented countryside, which will yield more food and more timber for the nation's requirements; to promote much-needed confidence and security in the mind of the agricultural producer, which is a condition precedent to effort and enterprise; to create a better outlook and better opportunities of advancement to the industrious agricultural worker, and if possible
224
to lift Britain's premier industry from the cockpit of Party strife.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I was very glad to hear from a member of the Government that the coal mine subsidy was of a purely temporary character. The noble Lord, Lord Par-moor, alluded to the hardship inflicted upon farmers owing to the "Stand still Order." I myself have suffered very considerably from that Order, but the noble Lord, as I understood him, gave as his remedy, or one of the remedies, that there should be a, licence issued to enable the farmer to send his cattle to the market or to move them to the slaughter house.
My experience is that that is already done. I had an opportunity to obtain a licence to send cattle to the market. But remember this: you could not bring them back again. The consequence was that you were entirely in the hands of the butchers, and they could make any offer that they liked, and you were bound to accept it. I believe that there was some slight alteration later which would enable you, if you could get a licence from another set of police, and if you could leave the cattle in the market for a day or two, to bring them back again, but all that was such a trouble that it was practically impossible to act upon that Order. There is no doubt that the "Stand still Order" does inflict a considerable hardship upon farmers, and, though I am strongly against a subsidy in any form, I think if such an Order is to be imposed there should be some compensation to farmers for the loss incurred owing to it.
The noble Lord is, of course, aware that foot-and-mouth disease has broken out in two or three areas. The continual recurrence of these outbreaks is a very serious thing. I saw the other day a statement. that certain cattle coming from Ireland were sent, I think, to Northallerton, and that those cattle were found to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, and, according to the report in the newspaper, the Ministry of Agriculture said: "Oh, they must have caught it in England." Of course, that is not impossible, but I should have said that it was extremely unlikely, and I would ask my noble friend whether he is not of opinion that it would be very difficult for any inspector or veterinary surgeon in the

225
Irish Free State to certify that an animal belonging to an Irish farmer was not fit to be sold in a Saxon town? I think that if any Irish Inspector or veterinary surgeon were to make a certificate of that sort his life would probably be made very unpleasant.
I do not want at this late hour to deal with any question of agricultural credit, because that can be dealt with on another occasion, but I should like to say one word upon the granting of a million of money to improve and encourage the importation of meat and agricultural products from the Dominions. I saw it stated, in a letter signed by a woman, that she had bought in Smithfield the carcase of a sheep, weighing 52 lbs. or 53 lbs., for 18 s. 9d., and that., with the carriage, that sheep cost her£l. Almost on the same day I sent some stags to market and I put a reserve of 55 s. upon them, which was a barely remunerative price, and, by a curious coincidence they did weigh somewhere about 53 lbs. and I could only sell five of them. I should like to ask my noble friend how a farmer can make a living if the importation is encouraged from our Dominions of sheep weighing 52 lbs. which can he sold for £1 It is quite impossible that any living can be made if that goes on, and I am rather afraid that the money advanced by the State will probably be, lost if that state of affairs is to continue. I would ask my noble friend to consider seriously whether or not some steps cannot be taken to stop the importation of foreign live cattle for a certain time, in order to sec whether or not foot-and-month disease can he prevented thereby; and also whether he will not consider that, if a subsidy is to be given to our Colonial kinsmen, something of the same sort ought not to be given to British farmers.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord, speaking for the Government, referred briefly to the programme of the Labour Party, and took great pleasure in poking fun at them by saying that we were preparing a fresh edition. The Party to which I belong' will never take shame to itself for saying that it is prepared to overhaul its programme and bring it up to date. But one thing, I can tell him, it will never do: it is not going to wait until it gets into office
226
next time to find out that it has got no policy at all, and to send out a desperate S.O.S. to all the various agricultural bodies in the State to try to get a policy from them. Nor, when we finally produce a White Paper, such as the noble Lord has just produced, will we be in the position, when we are asked for an explanation of what is meant by certain rather vague statements in the White Paper, of putting off the questioners with Latin quotations and the admission that we are prepared to borrow lessons from any one who will offer them to us.
LORD BLEDISLOE: If the time of the House had permitted I should have been quite prepared to answer in detail what we have at present decided upon in this connection, but I must take exception to the noble Lord's suggestion that I am not prepared to meet questioners fairly. If Lord Parmoor desires me to go further into detail I most certainly will, but after all this question which the noble Lord has raised to-day covers the whole area of agricultural policy in all its ramifications. I think it would he unfair to expect me to answer in detail every single problem which may in this connection be put before the House.
EARL DE LA WARR: I certainly apologise to the noble Lord if it is only through lack of time that, he was unable to answer the questions. I would not venture at this late hour to touch upon any proposal which has been already mentioned during this debate but there are two points to which I should life to refer. I must confess that I find myself somewhat at a loss because the noble Lord has admitted so many of our premises that it is really very difficult to understand how he has escaped going on and accepting our conclusions.
Take, for instance, the tenure of land. He has justified the granting of credit on the grounds that landlords are unable to provide it. He then went on to say, however, that they were providing a certain amount, and therefore they were still performing their functions. I submit that he cannot have it both ways. The noble Lord must make up his mind. Apparently he was very much nearer having made up his, mind three or four years ago, when, speaking at Hull, he told us that—
"the British agricultural landowner to-day is on his trial. Unless he justifies himself

227
as such the nationalisation of land is inevitable. Public opinion will demand his extinction, and Parliament will endorse the demand. Most landowners have been for the last two generations mere rent-receivers."
How often have I heard speeches of that kind on the political platform of the Party to which I have the honour to belong. Every single proposal that the Government have put forward is in the direction of performing the landowners' functions for them—the granting of credit, drainage, setting out and preparing schemes for purchasing land for small holdings, afforestation work, assistance to beet sugar growing, and, finally, education and research.
There is a further question I should like to have put to the noble Lord, but I am afraid it is too late. He did not mention the stabilisation of agricultural prices on which his Ministry issued a Report some few months ago. I remember asking him in the course of a former debate what steps the Ministry proposed to take in regard to this matter, and he replied that they were going into it. I should like to ask him whether any conclusions have yet been reached. I very much welcome the noble Lord's denial of any sympathy with the policy of Protection. I am convinced that the policy of the stabilisation of agricultural prices will do infinitely more for the farmer and the consumer than any policy of Protection. The farmer does not need protection against the foreign producer. He needs protection from his own competitive instinct which prevents him from co-operating, and protection also against the speculator who deals in the commodities he produces and the things he has to buy. Those speculators live not only in Chicago and other markets of the world, but here at home, and that is the problem we have to face.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not know whether it is necessary for me to say much in reply to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. All I would say is that if he desires that this House should examine the problem of the stabilisation of agricultural prices as put forward by the Party to which he belongs, it would be wise for him to initiate a special debate upon the subject. I may say, shortly, that we are not very much tempted by the experience we had during the War when the Government went into
228
the market and bought large quantities of wheat and other produce, to adopt the same system again, because it certainly did not tend to make the price of food any lower for the British consumer.
I must apologise to Lord Strachie and Lord Banbury of Southam for not making any reference to the grant of£l.000,000 which was promised last year in connection with the marketing of Dominion produce. It has now been agreed with the Dominions that the£1,000,000 shall extend to British produce as well as to other produce of the British Empire.
LORD STRACHIE: Equally?
LORD BLEDISLOE: May I just finish? A scheme is now being considered by a special Committee set up by the Government (a Government Committee) as to how, in fairness to the British as well as the Dominion producer, this sum may be most us fully and equitably allocated. I did not go into detail about the question of foot-and-mouth disease because we had a debate on the subject in the absence, I think, of the noble and learned Lord just before Christmas. But Lord Banbury of Southam was right in saying that there is no interference with the movement of animals within the regulated area.
LORD PARMOOR: Of course, the noble Lord was right; I never questioned that.
LORD BLEDISLOE: He answered what I ought to have answered and I must apologise to the noble Lord opposite. Movement in the area is allowed, but in the attempt to keep a disease-free area, movement from the regulated area to the outside of course is not allowed. On the admission of the National Farmers' Union, that Standstill Order "has done more than anything else to check the spread of the disease recently as well as three years ago. In regard to Ireland we have no reason to suppose that there is any disease there. We have full information of the conditions there and have no reason for thinking that it is passing from Ireland to this country.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, for the most part I think the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, appreciated the nature of my criticisms. In fact, I could hardly have expected him to agree more fully with

229
a good deal of the criticism I directed against the White Paper. There are two points only upon which I must say a word. I think the noble Lord misunderstood what l said about afforestation. When I was President of the Council we made a great advance in that matter. The two horns of the forestry inquiry, as the noble Marquess knows, are the Council and the Forestry Commission. We made a great advance, and we met Lord Lovat at that time, in pressing the matter forward. I have always understood that since then the matter has gone forward in a way which I should thoroughly approve. I think also I should not be out of accord with whatever Mr. MacDonald said, because I understand what he means. But in dealing with agricultural
230
policy, the Forestry Commission can affect only a email area.
I need not dwell upon the other points. I read to your Lordships what was said by the Buckingham Farmers' Union about the "Stand still Order" and, shortly, the difficulty was that to which the noble Lori, Lord Banbury of Southam, referred. I hope there was no misapprehension on the point. I am entirely in accord with what Lord Bledisloe and Lord Banbury of Southam said upon it. After the very full answer that the noble Lord has given it is not necessary for me to press my Motion, and I ask leave to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes after seven o'clock.