Lords Sitting of 25 May 1927

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT CRAIGAVON.
The Right Hon. Sir James Craig, Baronet, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, having been created Viscount Craigavon of Stormont, in the County Down—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD CORNWALLIS.
Fiennes Stanley Wykeham Cornwallis. Esquire, C.B.E., T.D., D.L., having been created Baron Cornwallis of Linton, in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
WAR RISKS ASSOCIATIONS (DISTRIBUTION OF RESERVE FUNDS) BILL.
Read 2a.
GAINSBOROUGH BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BIRKENHEAD EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION (WATER) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MATLOCKS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SUTTON COLDFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

AGRICULTURE.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR, who had given Notice to call attention to the conditions of agriculture, and to move for Papers, said: My Lords, my Motion on the Paper is to call attention to the conditions of agriculture and in order that the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, should have full information as to the points which I desire to raise, I sent him a note of them, which no doubt he received. I hope, if I may say so, that the noble Lord is now better, because I have to make him speak this afternoon. The conditions of agriculture, at any rate from my experience as an agriculturist, now extending over nearly fifty years, were really never worse than they are at the present time. I do not wish to go into accounts on the matter, but I am sorry to say that the audit shows that the accounts, at any rate on my farm, during the past year are worse in proportion to the amount of land farmed than at any time during the last fifty years, during which I have farmed about 1,500 acres. I agree with the statement which was made by the President of the National Union of Farmers, himself a practical farmer, that the position is critical. I do not think that those words are too strong as regards the present conditions of agriculture.
I dare say many of your Lordships may have seen a number of articles or memoranda or whatever they should be called, published in the Daily Mail, which are derived, I fancy, from several trustworthy sources, stating the very large losses which, according to the information they have received, farmers have suffered, particularly during the last year. Meanwhile, one wonders what the Government are going to do. We discussed more than a year ago, on a Question which I put in your Lordships' House, the matters raised in the White Paper, expressing a sceptical view whether those measures should be brought forward, and if they were brought forward whether the proposals were likely to be effective in any way beneficial to the industry of agriculture. Not only have the present Government—if anything is to be done—an overwhelming majority in both Houses of Parliament, which gives them a free hand, but by tradition and history they are the Party who have always affected to be most interested in agriculture and most desirous of introducing reforming legislation. In the White Paper to which I have referred very excellent reasons were given, in which I quite concur, why neither Protection nor subsidy is a possible remedy at the present time; but one has to consider that although at the present time neither of those remedies is either possible or practicable, yet they really are the remedies which are being discussed at the market ordinaries, and really are the remedies to which a large number of farmers are looking forward.
I saw the other day a complaint from a farmer that even the tariff protection on malting barley which had been promised had not been given, but my experience of farmers is that they will discuss Protection and subsidy as the only real basis on which they can get a remedy for the ills from which they think they suffer. Meanwhile, so far as I know, we have the Rabbits and Rooks Bill, and I see that there is a proposal on the Paper to-day to appoint a Select Committee to consider it. Whether rooks are penalised in that Bill or not, or whatever the result may be, I do not think that agriculture will be affected either beneficially or injuriously to any appreciable extent. It is one of those small measures which, even if they are passed, do not affect the real ques-
472
tion at all. It is like giving a stone when the farmers and the farming interest are asking for bread.
There are two passages in the Election Address of the Prime Minister to which I wish to call attention because they summarise in a convenient form points which I want to raise. In the first place he said (it is admirably expressed)—
"I regard it as vital that the great basic industry of agriculture should be not merely preserved but restored to a more prosperous condition"—
that is a most admirable sentiment with which we all agree; and he adds:—
"as an essential balancing element in the economic and social life of the country."
I confess I do not entirely understand what is meant by the expression "an essential balancing element." But it may be the Prime Minister was referring to matters which have been much to the fore in the Economic Conference at Geneva, where it has been suggested that if agriculture generally is to be put on a permanently satisfactory basis it can only be done if the general social conditions connected with agricultural life in the country, particularly as affecting the workers, can compare sufficiently favourably with those of the industrial workers in the towns.
That is an extremely important point. I do not seek to raise it particularly this afternoon, but most certainly if that is what the Prime Minister meant I think he deserves the gratitude of all persons really interested in the agricultural life of the country. I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will be able to tell us, after that promise, whether any proposals are now before the Ministry of Agriculture in order to bring about a result of that kind; that is to say, are the Ministry contemplating some measure which would equalise to a great extent, at any rate to the extent mentioned at the Economic Conference at Geneva, social conditions in our agricultural and industrial districts?
The second paragraph in the Prime Minister's Election Address is almost more striking than the first. He says:—
"In short, the purpose of our Party"—
—that is the Party in power with an overwhelming majority in both Houses—.
"is to protect agriculture from Socialistic and bureaucratic tyranny, and to secure"—

473
this is very important—
"for them the just reward due to all investments in the soil whether it is of money, muscle or brains."
There again is an admirable ideal, but what has been done to secure a due reward to all investments in the soil whether of money, muscle, or brain? The present conditions are extremely unfavourable as regards investment for the landowners, there is a great deal of unemployment among the agricultural workers who represent the muscle, and as regards the "brain," by which I suppose is meant the tenants, there never was a time, I believe, when so many tenants were anxious to give notice and were unable to employ their brains in the agricultural industry so as to get anything like an adequate result.
I see the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in his place and therefore I should like to deal with this point. I think one of the things which have been overlooked in agriculture is the importance of further scientific investigation. The noble Earl knows very well that certain scientific Investigations particularly affecting foot-and-mouth disease have been carefully considered, but so far one has not seen any fruitful results. I presume these investigations have been proceeded with. They were held at the Privy Council Office and I had the honour to be there. But if we turn from those particular scientific researches and look into the effects of the research carried on in the research department of agriculture at Oxford, I think that the noble Earl will find that the notion that any advance in the direction of State ownership of land will result in what is called bureaucratic or Socialistic interference is entirely without real and sound foundation.
A very important book on the tenure of agricultural land, issued from the research department at Oxford, has been published. Perhaps I might say what reception this book has met with. It is said to be small in size but great in value. I do not take The Times to be a paper favourable to the suggestion made in this book, but The Times says:—
"This book may well mark a stage in the development of agricultural history."
I believe that is perfectly true. I refer to the book on the tenure of agricultural
474
land published by Mr. Orwin and Mr. Peel. Of course, we all know Mr. Orwin and Mr. Peel. Mr. Orwin is not a political person, I assume, but he has certainly no sympathy whatever with the Labour Party. He indicates that more than once. And therefore I regard what he says about the extension of State ownership—which I myself believe to be the only true road of advance in agriculture at the present time—as of special value.
I will quote from another review of the book which appeared in the Spectator:—
"The book provides the best text vet provided."
I agree with that myself.
"No political Party can disregard it"—
that I also think is right—
"not the Labour Party, who desire control from Whitehall"—
I think the paper is wrong in that, but that is the statement of the reviewer—
"or the Liberal Party with their half-baked scheme for restoring the yeoman, or the Conservative Party, who have not yet confessed to any scheme at all."
That reference to the present Government, I think, is accurate enough.
LORD BLEDISLOE: That was written two years ago.
LORD PARMOOR: I dare say it was written two years ago, but it does not make it any the worse.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My only point was this. There were then before the country a so-called scheme of agricultural policy for the Labour Party and a Liberal agricultural policy, but there was not then an agreed scheme for the Conservative Party. It has been issued since.
LORD PARMOOR: Do you mean the White Paper? If the White Paper is the answer to the suggestion that the Conservative Party have not yet embraced any scheme at all I think it confirms and does not weaken what was said by Professor Orwin. When I say it confirms what was said I recall that I have something here which I do not wish to read again. It is almost purely negative and on the smaller and less spectacular matters—I think that is the expression used—either nothing has been done or it is not a matter of policy

475
at all. I want your Lordships to know what Professor Orwin does say because, according to my view, although he may not have known what was contained in the Labour Party policy, the two policies are very much alike.
I will read what he says about State ownership and I will tell your Lordships what the arguments are that he gives in its favour. They certainly appear to me to be very strong arguments and of a very conclusive kind. He says:
"Outside such [urban] areas the proposal is that all lands, speaking generally, should be acquired by the State."
That is written by a conservative-minded man of research at Oxford.
"It may be desirable to make exceptions in particular cases."
Then he says:—
"The valuation of the property to be taken over would be a mere matter of arithmetic in the great majority of cases."
He wishes to take as the valuation Schedule A. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, is not here to-day. I hope he is better. I wish to say at once that, fifty years ago I am afraid it is now, I wrote a book. It has gone through a great many editions since. I would have nothing to do personally with any scheme which did not provide fair compensation for the existing owners. I have expressed myself more than once to that effect. I think it is right to make it clear again that the State purchase of land is no novelty; it is merely in accordance with what is known as the law of eminent domain which exists in every civilised country. That is the view that if the land is wanted for a public purpose by the country the country is entitled to take it for that purpose provided always that it gives fair compensation to the owner in respect of his private property.
There is great misunderstanding upon this point. In the Labour Party programme exactly the same system of compensation is put forward and fully explained as that suggested by Professor Orwin and Mr. Peel. You may say that you do not want State extension of ownership, that there is no public necessity, but so far as the Labour Party policy and the policy which I have stated of Professor Orwin are concerned, they both agree that you must pay compensation, and they both put it on the same
476
basis of a certain number of years' purchase of the net assessments under Schedule A, which, of course, will depend upon money market conditions at the time. There is no difference whatever as between what he considers fair and what is embraced in the Labour Party's scheme. A far more important part of Professor Orwin's book deals with something that is more or less common to all of us. I cannot imagine any one—I think they would be unwise to do it anywhere—interfering with private property without providing adequate compensation. I regard that as an essential preliminary condition and I will therefore put that on one side. That is a condition which is contained in the Labour Party policy.
Professor Orwin goes on to show—and this is the most important part of his book—the importance of what he calls State administration. Here let me make it quite clear that State administration does not mean State control. I think the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, has often confused the two. It means, on the contrary, leaving control in the hands of the actual farmers or the people industrially interested; it means leaving the management in their hands subject only to certain rules of public administration. This would practically give them greater freedom than they have at the present time. What Professor Orwin says on this point is so important that I would like to read it:
"If the State were constituted universal landlord it would be possible to define the conditions subject to which the land was to be held so as to maintain the maximum possible amount of cultivation. In this way only can the community secure the fullest use of the land—namely, by laying down the conditions of tenure and leaving the farmer free to develop his enterprise subject to them."
I think that is an essential condition, but in order to remove misconception I may point out that those two passages really might have been taken from the Labour Party policy.
There has been so much misapprehension and so much criticism that I should like to read two passages from the Labour Party policy which are entirely in accordance with Professor Orwin's views. Under the head of public control of land they say:—
"Every endeavour should be made to minimise bureaucratic tendencies and to ex-

477
tend the co-operative efforts of those who seek to find their life's work in the development of agriculture."
Public administration does away with the necessity of such control, for instance, as was instituted under what I call the Subsidy Acts, because under general principles and under tenure similar in character in all cases you can safely leave, and ought to leave, the control to the individual farmer. These again are words from the Labour Party's policy on agriculture:—
". … the actual conduct of the industry must be in the hands of those actually concerned in it."
My own point of view is that there can be no question about that. Bureaucratic tyranny and bureaucratic interference are precisely the tendencies which in my view the Labour Party policy and the policy laid down from the agriculture research department of the University of Oxford would prohibit and prevent. You are certain to have some form of public control and the wider you make it the far greater will be the individual freedom of the particular farmer who is entitled to control his own business in his own way.
There is one other matter I should like to mention before leaving this point. In The Times the other day there was a letter written by the Secretary of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Robbins, who was not very friendly in his criticism of the present Government in what he did say. He put his point very shortly and very well when he said that the difficulty is that of bridging the existing gulf between costs and prices. In my view that puts the economic question in a particularly simple form. He also went on to say that one of the great difficulties—here again I entirely agree—really arises from appreciation of gold and appreciation of the currency standard. Those of us who were in the House of Commons many years ago will recollect the many speeches that that great agriculturist the late Viscount Chaplin made upon this point which was the foundation of a movement in the direction of bimetallism. That movement died out with the large discovery of new gold in South Africa which counteracted any tendency at the time to the appreciation of the currency.
To my mind, however, this is a most essential question. I will take an illus-
478
tration that I know perfectly well. Suppose a man carries a large amount of stock on his farm, is an admirable farmer in all respects, and that in all respects his industry is well carried on, but that owing to conditions of currency there is an appreciation of gold. What is the result and what has been the result to farmers in recent years? Although his industry has been carried on under admirable and efficient conditions that has not allowed him to bridge the gulf between costs and prices. I want to stress this point and to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, whether the Ministry has any view as to whether there is any way in which this difficulty, which is quite outside the control of the farmer, can adequately be met. It is a far more important point than is generally understood. We talk about a fall in prices, but what is really taking place is appreciation in the value of gold, which is to my mind a far bigger factor at the present time. I want to know how any farmer, however intelligent and active he may be, can in any way protect himself against a liability of that kind. It is an extremely important matter. I doubt myself if there is any more important matter at the present time as regards the position of farmers in this country. I do not think there can be any doubt of the fact and it is a matter which I hope the noble Lord will consider with the greatest care.
There is another point as regards the present condition of agriculture. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture the other day referred to the report of Mr. Thompson, which I presume everyone who is interested in the question has read. That report is the result of the most patient work excellently carried out. I read that book through two or three times and, although there was only one phrase to which the Minister of Agriculture referred, it seems to me that all the statistics in the book are in accord with the evidence which comes from all other sources to the effect that agriculture is in a critical condition at the present time. Let me deal with one or two matters which certainly affected me very much when I read that book. Mr. Thompson says that in a period of over thirty years from 1892 up to the present time the area of cultivated land has shown a persistent decline, and the ultimate figure is somewhere between two

479
and three million acres. That is, I consider, a very remarkable test of the decline of the agricultural industry in this country.
He also shows that there is a very remarkable difference in value and in results between small holdings and large holdings. I take as a test those above 150 acres and those below that size, and they show in every case—or so it appears to me—that the direction in which we should look to find a remedy alike for the capitalist (that is, the owner) and for the farmer and for the worker is in the direction of small owners.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Did you say small owners?
LORD PARMOOR: Or holders. I prefer tenancies. There are advantages, no doubt, in each system, but I think it is time to organise the whole industry on tenants who have a perpetual right of occupation so long as they comply with the conditions attached to their holdings. I should like upon that to give two quotations from former Ministers of Agriculture. I do not want to make any comparison between present Ministers and former Ministers. One of those from whom I want to quote is the present Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin, and the other is Lord Ernie. I think the caution they give ought to be carefully considered.
In 1924 Lord Irwin said—and I ask any one in this House who is interested in country life whether his experience is not in the same direction, it certainly is in the district in which I live—that those accustomed to live in the country watched the process of deterioration going on in the capital equipment of the land and buildings. That is exactly the danger. In old days—I am a lover of old times in many respects—the persons who found capital and also acted in a certain sense as bankers for the tenants were the landlords. The old landlord system in this country up to a certain point was admirable, but the time has come when capital cannot be found in ordinary cases from that source. I do not think Lord Bledisloe will controvert that. The result is that which Lord Irwin saw, a deterioration going on in the capital equipment of the land and buildings. I should like to quote one passage from a letter which Lord Ernle wrote in September, 1925. He said that "the modern system"—that is
480
the landlord and tenant system—"has broken down in one of its most essential features," that is in the provision of proper capital equipment for carrying on the industry of agriculture under efficient conditions. That is an opinion of the greatest value.
No one will suppose that either Lord Irwin or Lord Ernle or the agricultural professors of the University of Oxford are what I may call confiscators or people of that kind. That is a ridiculous idea which is merely used to produce prejudice. The question I raise is this: Is not Mr. Orwin right when he says that the time has come when for the public advantage and in order to get the best results from farming in this country, you should have unity of tenure or holding? I prefer tenure under State ownership and administration by means of State management. Let me give an illustration which I think will go home to a good many people here. I do not see my noble friend Lord Daryngton here, but we know that he represents the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are responsible for an estate of about 240,000 acres, most of which they hold on statutory title and for trust purposes. Is there any man who will say for a moment that there was not a great improvement in the management of that estate by its concentration under a large system of what is really public management and public administration? There is no doubt that if there is one estate in this country which fully confirms the views of those who desire the extension of State management and State ownership, it is to be found in the history of the magnificent management by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of their estate of 240,000 acres.
Let me give another illustration. For twenty years I have happened to be upon the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall. We have an estate there of about 133,000 acres, of which Lord Clinton will have much knowledge. A good deal of it, of course, is comprised in Dartmoor, but again and again in old days, before the time when the noble Lord became a member of the Council, the question was raised whether property of this kind could properly be managed under a semi-public State Department of this character. It was raised several times by Sir Charles Dilke, among

481
others, and I recollect having to reply to him on behalf of the Duchy more than once in the House of Commons. He ultimately stated in public that he was satisfied that this public management was of the best possible character, and that in no other way would better results be obtained than were obtained under this public system—for it was really a system of public management—of the Duchy of Cornwall.
If we want to test experience further, the same principles have been most satisfactorily applied in the Duchy of Lancaster, which is a similar property of, I think, about 30,000 acres, and on the properties managed by the Woods and Forests Department, of which I have not the exact figures, but no doubt they are larger in extent. Surely, therefore, we not only have the view of persons who have most closely watched these matters in favour of State ownership and administration, but we have these actual illustrations which must bring home to every one who takes the trouble to go and see the conditions of estates of this kind that one admirable way, if not the most admirable way, to get the best results as regards the product of land is through State administration.
The advantages of unity of ownership and administration are really the chief theme of this book. I will not trouble your Lordships with it now, but I will take one or two instances; and again I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, will disagree with what I have to say. Take the matters that were referred to in the White Paper of last year. Is there not an advantage to be drawn from unity of management in the provision of land for all public purposes? Would it not assist the settlement of land, small holdings and afforestation? It is exactly what you want. You get a cheaper system of conveyancing, which is really a much more serious matter now than is often understood, and in every direction, so far as I can see, you get economy and other advantages by unity of management, and this must be convincing unless you can show a corresponding loss. The only corresponding loss that the school at Oxford seems to have contemplated is the loss in stamps to the Treasury. I consider this a tremendous advance in the reform of land management.
Let me take another illustration with which I think the noble Lord will be very
482
familiar. In the county in which I live we have had the Ouse drainage scheme—the noble Lord shrugs his shoulders—and I recollect that at its inception a case came before me at Quarter Sessions regarding certain rates. I need not go into it, but it illustrates all the difficulties incidental to a drainage scheme where the river passes the properties of large numbers of different owners of land. I say without any hesitation that in a case of that kind, or any other drainage scheme, if you have unity of ownership and management you can do in five minutes what cannot be done now in five years. Lord Bledisloe will tell me if I am wrong—and it may be that comparison of five minutes with five years is a little exaggerated—but according to his own statistics, which I naturally regard with great respect, there are at the present time in this country some 650,000 acres of waterlogged land. Apart from small matters of fallen trees and things of that kind, in every single instance where you desire to have a real drainage scheme the difficulties are practically removed if you have unity of ownership and administration.
I will not detain your Lordships much longer, but there are one or two points on which I wish to say a word regarding the future. I regard agricultural education as the most important point of all. I had a letter the other day from Helsingör, which, as your Lordships will know, is the headquarters of the high school system in Denmark. I should like to read one passage which. I am sure, will carry great weight. The writer is replying to a question that I put regarding the success of Danish agriculture, and he says:
"I personally think that it is due to many factors, but first of all to the folk high schools and the co-operative movement."
These are schools which are directed, not, to technical training but to general education, and it is as a consequence of these schools that co-operation is becoming the leading factor in Danish agriculture, without which none of its present advantages could have been obtained. We talk of small holdings in this country, but I do not think that their success is really possible unless you first of all cultivate the same spirit of general community and co-operative life.

483
I do not wish to trouble your Lordships at length, but this is certainly a most interesting document because it evolved these two theories: (1), that you cannot have success in agriculture without the spirit of co-operation; and (2), that you cannot get that spirit if you leave your farmers and workers as isolated individuals and do not bring them together under some general educational system. As an illustration it is only necessary to point to what we know of the effects in Denmark, where 90 per cent. of the farming is on a co-operative basis. I do not mean that they have co-operative farms—I am not in favour of them—but they have co-operative methods of buying and selling. The same tendency is to be found in other countries, but the inducement of an educational system is always necessary to bring the advantages of co-operation home to the farmers. We know that in this country co-operation has nearly always failed heretofore. Why has it failed? Because there has been no education, and the farmer has been left in an isolated position. He cannot understand, and he does not know, the enormous advantages to be derived where people are helping one another and working for a common object. What happened in Denmark has happened equally in other countries, particularly in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
For one moment I will ask the noble Lord to give me his attention upon another matter. He spoke both in his White Paper and in what he said afterwards of the enormous importance of convenient credit arrangements for farming purposes, because both short and long term credits are perhaps more important in the case of farming than in the case of any other industry. At the present time there are in the country no facilities for credits. The landlord, who used to be in a certain sense the banker of his tenant, in making advances, is no longer in a position to do it, and the great banks desire to collect money in the country not to use it there, but to use it in the great industrial centres and in industrial concerns. In Germany, where, by the by, since the War, 10,000 new co-operative companies have been started in connection with farming, there are village banks, and great use is made of these village banks
484
in order to give farmers and agriculturists credit. I ask the noble Lord whether he can say if any real progress has been made in what was stated in the White Paper to be a necessary condition—namely, the provision of sufficient credit for the financing of the agricultural system.
Another matter which the noble Lord referred to is marketing. I am perfectly certain that at the present time, in many parts of England, very much loss indeed is involved both from the methods of marketing in some places and from the want of marketing in others. I do not know whether the noble Lord has read another book from Oxford, Mr. Prewett's book, on the matter. You cannot have marketing facilities without co-operation. I do not believe it is possible as regards our country districts. I want to say, however, that much more assistance ought to be given as regards marketing. It is very cold comfort for the English farmer that a million of money has been spent on encouraging marketing which comes into competition with his own produce. I do not grudge that if it be necessary, but surely if you are spending a million pounds to advertise and improve the methods of Imperial marketing, you ought not to neglect the home question, which in my opinion is more urgent and necessary, because in this respect we are the poorer country as compared with our Dominions and Colonies.
I will not go further, although I should have liked to say a word upon rating and raiding the Road Fund. Nothing has been done to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the subject of rating. There ought to have been discrimination throwing a large number of expenses on the Central Exchequer which are now imposed upon the local ratepayer. I am glad to think that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, seems to express the same view. It is a matter of very vital importance, because you have got to pay rates, however poor you are, and whether or not you are making a loss; but after all, when the farmer's chance came, when he hoped the road expenses might come off him, in came the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raid the Road Fund. It is always the same thing. All these additional expenses are thrown upon the rates because it is easier and because there is no repre-

485
sentative in the House of Commons of the ratepayer as there is of the taxpayer. Those are some of the questions which I desire to ask.
I think I have dealt with most of those of which I have given the noble Lord notice. At any rate I have dealt with as many as the patience of your Lordships would allow me to deal with. I want to look forward to a time when our country districts will have a real prosperity, when there is no inducement, as there is now, to draw our workers from the country into the town. I was interested, as the Labour Party was interested, in the Minimum Wage Bill, when it came in. In my own district we had to pay 10 s. and more above the minimum scale. But that is not sufficient. You must have something like community social life in the country districts, not dissimilar to that which you have in the towns and industrial districts. The other day I went to Carterton, on the high land in Oxfordshire, where there are three hundred members who have a co-operative system. They are doing well and living happily there as a community, quite satisfied with the production of their agricultural system, which appears to be efficient and sufficient so far as I saw it. It is a poor land—poor Cotswold soil—but they are working there in a happy agricultural industrial community, and I wish there were many more such communities in all parts of the country. I have now said what I wanted to say on this subject and move for papers.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, perhaps you will grant me some little indulgence on this occasion in replying to the noble and learned Lord opposite, who has covered a considerable amount, of ground, as I must confess at the moment I am suffering from some physical disability. Of course we must all agree as to the enormous importance to every country, and not least to ours, of a large measure of agricultural prosperity, and we are as a Government as entirely sympathetic with that view as the noble and learned Lord opposite, or indeed anyone who speaks from the Benches opposite, can possibly be. Let me visualise the facts as they are and consider to what extent the remedies suggested are practical or are calculated
486
to bring relief. The noble Lord has referred, with a commendation which, if I may be allowed, I should like to endorse, to Mr. R. J. Thompson's very interesting memorandum on the census of agricultural production which has lately been issued.
LORD PARMOOR: Up to the end of 1925.
LORD BLEDISLOE: For the year 1925—the first census of the sort that has taken place since 1908, and therefore the figures of 1925 are necessarily and properly comparable with the figures which were available in 1908. The arable area has shrunk, but the arable area has been shrinking steadily for many reasons other than those that the noble Lord has indicated for the last fifty years at least, and, in fact, the rate of decrease has been less since 1910 than it was for a quarter of a century prior to that. But I am bound to say that I think there is too great a tendency to estimate the current measure of agricultural prosperity, or even of agricultural production, in terms of arable area, and particularly in terms of wheat; and any one who has been careful to study the whole of Mr. Thompson's interesting memorandum will discover that the loss of tillage, as shown in that agricultural census, is largely balanced by the gains in live stock during the last twenty years.
This report shows that live stock is—as it has been for many years past—the predominant feature of our British farming. Nearly 70 per cent. of the estimated value of produce sold off farms in 1925 consists of live stock or the products of live stock; while corn crops account for less than 11 per cent. of the total value; and, as all will recognise, there has been a large increase in dairy farming in recent years—perhaps too large an increase in the best interests of the dairy farmers themselves. That can only be cured by a greater recognition in this country of the value of milk—a recognition which is not, unfortunately, extended by the urban population of this country as it is in most other civilised countries in the world. But the increase in dairy farming is represented by a difference between the former census year, 1908, and 1925 of 500,000 additional dairy cows. The total in 1925 was 2,713,000—a very considerable increase, an increase, judged according

487
to cropping, of from eighty-five to 105 per 1,000 acres of crops and grass taken together. Milk production has increased from 975 million gallons in 1908 to 1,120 million gallons in 1925, or an increase of 15 per cent.
It is perfectly true that there has been a considerable and unfortunate decrease in the head of sheep in this country. That is largely owing to war conditions, to which at the moment I need not particularly refer. But there has, on the other hand, been a very substantial increase in the number of pigs. The average number in the last quinquennial period is 2,648,000, or much higher than the head of pigs in any other previous corresponding quinquennial period. But what I should like to leave on the mind of the noble Lord opposite is that the total output (I am taking Mr. Thompson's memorandum, and the census figures upon which it is based)—
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Is this Great Britain, or England?
LORD BLEDISLOE: This is England and Wales. Comparing the total output of agricultural produce, including meat and milk, in 1908 with that in 1925, it will be found that the output has remained practically stationary, if you allow for the change in money value. The aggregate production in 1908 was £127,000,000, and in 1925, £225,000,000, or an increase of 77 per cent. The average increase in prices is also exactly 77 per cent. In this connection it must be remembered that this output has been obtained from nearly 2,000,000 acres less than in 1908.
LORD PARMOOR: Arable?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am taking the whole of the cultivated area. It is therefore apparent that some progress at any rate has been made in the matter of output during the last, seventeen years, in spite of the serious disturbance which came as the aftermath of the War. It may be said, and truly, that the number of agricultural workers has been reduced, but there again you have to take into account the quite considerable additional number of small holders and farmers. I am informed that if you take that into account there is no appreciable
488
reduction in the number of persons now working upon agricultural land in this country.
There is another factor, and a factor that makes very much for increased production and lower working costs, and that is the large increase which is steadily taking place in motive power of every description on farms, We have not yet in this country, unfortunately, developed electric power to the extent that is to be found in many other progressive countries, notably Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Czecho-Slovakia, and Poland. But there is everything to show that when farmers can be made to realise the advantages of electric current—always assuming that it is provided at anything like the same unit cost—it will come to be largely used throughout this country, and will help very materially in effecting increased agricultural output at lower overhead cost.
The noble Lord referred to drainage, and perhaps he will forgive me if I do not say much on that subject to-day because the matter, as he is probably aware, is sub judice. I see that the noble Lord admits entire ignorance of what I have good reason to know is the fact, that a Royal Commission is at present sitting to examine the whole question of the land drainage of this country—a Commission over which I have the honour to preside. We are sitting at present five hours every day, and we shall hope to be able in due course to put up some proposals, which may effect what the noble Lord desires in this direction. He mentioned a certain figure of undrained land. I think the figure he mentioned was the figure which I myself in this House two years ago mentioned to your Lordships, but, on further investigation for the purposes of the Royal Commission, we find that no less than 1,750,000 acres of land are either in urgent need of draining, or can be materially improved by draining. It is, in fact, one of the most serious factors in the agricultural position in this country at the present time, and that we are bound to recognise.
If I may, I will turn away from Mr. Thompson's report for a moment. I could not help wondering, as I listened to the noble and learned Lord, whether if he himself were Minister of Agriculture at the present time he would seriously advocate the one remedy which

489
he appears to have put forward as a means of removing or mitigating the serious depression which undoubtedly affects agriculture in this country. And let me make it perfectly clear in this connection that this country is not alone in suffering from agricultural depression. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord if he can indicate a single country in the whole world at the present time that is not similarly suffering from agricultural depression.
LORD PARMOOR: Not similarly.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Much of course depends on what we mean by "similarly." Some countries are suffering to a greater degree and some countries to a less degree but all alike, so far as I am aware, are suffering, including the United States and Denmark, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, and Denmark more particularly. I am going to be vain enough to suggest that if there is one country apart from my own that I happen to know something about the agriculture of it is Denmark and I should like to tell the noble and learned Lord for his own information that some of the largest farmers in Denmark to-day are trying to obtain farms in this country because of the serious and increasing agricultural depression that is prevailing there. Many of them have come to me as being personally acquainted with them.
I want frankly to admit that the position in Denmark, as indeed in certain other countries, is due to those monetary causes to which the noble Lord has referred. I am not competent to discuss such questions as what we used to call bimetallism or the relations of the monetary position to agricultural prosperity or adversity. I leave it to such experts as Mr. Dampier Whetham, who has lately been writing to The Times on the subject. I think we must all admit that the monetary factor was undoubtedly serious in the depression of the last century and was a very great factor, probably the chief factor, in bringing about that depression which began about the year 1879. As the noble Lord himself has pointed out, with the increased output of gold in South Africa and elsewhere, this does not operate quite to the same extent as it did some fifty years ago,
490
although, undoubtedly, it is a factor and a factor which no Ministry of Agriculture can possibly do much to mitigate. The noble Lord, so far as I could make out, looked for remedies in three different directions. I will take the most important last. First of all, scientific research; secondly, education; lastly and chiefly, as far as I could understand, public ownership of land. The noble Lord must correct me if I use wrong expressions.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord is quite right, but the other conditions, of course, would be necessary.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to take first scientific research and with it scientific discoveries of economic value. I can also speak with some knowledge of this subject because I had it under investigation, with my noble friend the Earl of Balfour, while the Imperial Conference was sitting last year, and in view of the Imperial Agricultural Research Conference which is going to take place in October next. I am in a position to say that so far as I am aware there is no country in the whole world that has made the progress in the matter of agricultural research that this country has made during the last ten years, none whatever; and the whole Empire to-day is looking to us to guide them along the lines which we are finding to be successful in improving agricultural practice. I think the noble Lord, if he will note what takes place at this Imperial Agricultural Research Conference in October, will find that that will be amply testified to by the large number of delegates who are coming to London for the discussion of this subject from every part of the British Empire.
What is perhaps still more significant and interesting is that every one of our agricultural research stations in this country, of which we now have a very considerable number, each of them dealing with some particular subject of scientific research, is to an increasing extent every year being visited by farmers or farmers' sons within the first years of their professional life. The same thing is being reflected in education. I have only just concluded on behalf of the Government an inspection of every single agricultural college and Univer-

491
sity department in this country in receipt of Government grants in order to see whether those Government grants would appear to be justified by the work that is going on.
EARL DE LA WARR: Could the noble Lord tell us while on this point how far the Ministry is responsible for the work of research stations and how far it is due to the private subscriber?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I cannot give the noble Earl exact figures offhand, but I should say to the extent of 80 per cent. at least, probably 85 per cent., it is conducted under Government supervision and with Government money.
LORD OLIVIER: Development Fund money?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Almost entirely Development Fund money. What I was going on to say was that having held an inquiry at every single agricultural college in this country during the last eighteen months I find that the work there is almost in every instance developing. It is true there has been a slight abatement during the last twelve months to two years owing to the current agricultural depression, but there is undoubtedly greater provision at the present moment for agricultural education in this country than there used to be and in many cases there is greater provision than can be utilised by the farmers and their sons.
LORD PARMOOR: Can the noble Lord say when the last agricultural college was instituted?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I speak without reference to my staff but I should say Sutton Bonington was probably the last agricultural college on a large scale which was instituted. It has taken the place of the Kingston College in the Midlands for the benefit of, I think, five counties, including particularly Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Notts—a very fine institution which, if I may say so, is well worthy of a visit from any one who is really interested in agricultural education and its progress.
LORD PARMOOR: Can the noble Lord say when it was instituted?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have not the exact date. I should say Sutton Bonington in its present form has come into
492
being during the last five years. It has superseded the very much smaller place known as the Midland College at Kingston. There are magnificent buildings, still apparently in course of extension, and equipment which would bear comparison, I think, with anything to be found in a similar institution across the Atlantic. In addition to these colleges, most of which existed prior to the War, there have been a large number of farm institutes set up for the benefit chiefly of the sons of farmers and small holders. Every one of these, with one exception, has been brought into being since the War, and they are doing very valuable work indeed both in the institutions and by peripatetic classes. Perhaps I am unduly pressing this matter of research and education, but it happens to be the department of my work in which I am mainly interested.
I turn now to the third so-called remedy. In support of it the noble Lord has quoted from the book published by Messrs. Orwin and Peel and has also quoted a certain dictum of the present Viceroy of India. That quotation was to the effect that there had been a depreciation in capital equipment of land and buildings. Well, I am quite sure Lord Irwin never suggested anything in the nature of nationalisation as a remedy for that depreciation.
LORD PARMOOR: That is another matter.
LORD BLEDISLOE: What I want to ask the noble Lord is this. In a nebulous sort of way he seemed to think this depreciation could be made good if the land and buildings were in the hands of the Government and Government money was available for their improvement and extension. If the noble Lord did not mean that I should like to know what he did mean.
LORD PARMOOR: What I said was that under the system which I was advocating of the extension of Government ownership and public administration this depreciation would not go on because conditions would be changed.
LORD BLEDISLOE: If I may say so, that must necessarily be a matter of opinion and speculation.
LORD PARMOOR: I gave illustrations.
LORD BLEDISLOE: If I had time I should like to deal with some of those illustrations and as the noble Lord has referred to them again I would like, without wishing to say a word in disrespect of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or of the Duchy of Cornwall, seriously to ask whether in fact there are not plenty of estates that are every bit as well managed in this country as the estates belonging to either of those bodies.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not suggest there were not.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I would like to ask also whether there are not just as many notices to quit and whether there is not just as much agricultural depression to be found on those estates as can be found on the privately-owned estates throughout the country. I think on inquiry the noble Lord will find that that is unfortunately the case. The noble Lord, supported apparently by some remarks of Mr. Orwin, advocates the sort of policy which is set out in the Labour Party's pamphlet, but he was careful to tell us, rather to my surprise, that the actual conduct of the industry—I think he quoted Mr. Orwin—must be in the hands of the cultivators themselves.
LORD PARMOOR: I quoted from the Labour Party's agricultural policy.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am going to quote from the Labour Party's pamphlet myself, but I am dealing at the moment with the quotation he gave from Mr. Orwin, with whom I think he professed agreement, that the actual conduct of the industry must be in the hands of the cultivators themselves. I think those are the words he used.
LORD PARMOOR: I agree with that. That is my own view.
LORD BLEDISLOE: When I turn to the Labour Party's pamphlet I find these words:—
"We contemplate that county agricultural committees"—
they are apparently to be the Government's agents in this matter—
"will, in suitable cruses, cultivate land themselves on a considerable scale, though, of course, such public farming will not entirely supersede tenant farming, which will for long continue to be the normal method of tenure and cultivation."
494
Then it goes on to say:—
"In some cases it may be found more advantageous to continue the system of tenant farming or small holdings; in others to establish public utility companies or forms of collective or co-operative farming for cultivation of large tracts of land; in others again for the committee themselves to cultivate such land as may seem to call for direct cultivation by the public authority."
Then they wind up by saying:—
"Under a system of public ownership of land there would be immense possibilities of treating the agricultural industry as a great public service. …"
All I can venture to suggest is that if the agricultural industry ceases to be treated as an industry which is to yield profit to the cultivator and is treated as a great public service, it is almost inconceivable that it would not involve still greater loss than that which farmers in this country are undoubtedly suffering under the existing system. If there is one industry more than another in this country which depends on personal effort and initiative it is farming, and I cannot help thinking that if you are going to turn to any Government to find a remedy for its admitted ills it is not likely that it will be found in that direction.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time, but I should like to say a word with regard to Denmark. The noble Lord was good enough to tell me he was going to refer to Denmark and therefore I brushed up my own knowledge of that interesting little country. I agree with him regarding the work of the Danish folk high schools, which are to a large extent the basis of the educational system of that enterprising little country. They do to some extent promote co-operation and teach the principles of co-operation.
LORD PARMOOR: Almost entirely.
LORD BLEDISLOE: To a very large extent. I think the noble Lord, if he went to Denmark—
LORD PARMOOR: I have been there.
LORD BLEDISLOE:—would find if he inquired from any of those who govern the educational institutions of Denmark, that it is freely admitted throughout the country that the success of co-operation is mainly due to the fact that among the small holders of Denmark something like 90 per cent. own

495
their land. Ownership of agricultural land is inseparably bound up with the successful working of co-operation in that country. Mr. Madsen Mygdal, the present Prime Minister of Denmark, addressing the British Dairy Farmers' Association on the occasion of their visit to that country some five years ago, told them that it appeared to him that we should never succeed in developing agricultural co-operation to the extent to which it has been developed in Denmark until we have this country covered with a large number of peasant proprietors. That is the very antithesis of nationalisation of the land. I hope you will forgive me for having taken so much time and if there is a Division I hope that you will support the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, your Lordships have had the advantage of listening to a very carefully-thought-out and comprehensive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, who has covered a very large amount of ground. I should like to be permitted to say one word on one of the remedies he proposes and that is the nationalisation of the land. I frankly confess that as regards nationalisation of the land—let us be frank and call it by its proper name—I am prepared to go a very long way with him. We seem to forget that a great proportion of the land of England is already nationalised. People seem to forget that King Henry VIII nationalised or semi-nationalised a great deal of land for the purposes of the Church of England. They seem to forget that King William IV—a very much wiser and more far-seeing man than he is generally supposed to have been—handed over the whole of the Crown lands in England, an enormous property, to the State, and he was given a certain amount of money to keep up the name, state, dignity and honour of King of England. The Crown lands were given away absolutely and for ever to the nation, and that enormous property has been nationalised. I do not want to enter upon the question of nationalisation as such. It is an enormous subject and I hope I may be forgiven for not inflicting upon your Lordships any more ideas upon it.
As Lord Bledisloe very wisely said, let us come to the facts as they are. Lord Parmoor has brought before your Lord-
496
ships the state of agriculture as it exists now. What is that state? The Government came in three or four years ago with a stupendous majority, and we all hoped that peace was going to reign in Israel again. Unfortunately, ill-fortune seems to dog the Conservative Party, and they came at once into collision with the great Labour Party, and at this present moment, after they have been in office for nearly three years, very little has been done. Mr. Baldwin has unfortunately been occupied with affairs in China, the Labour Party and he have not yet settled their difficulties, and now a fresh bombshell has been thrown at the Government as to their attitude during the three years that they have spent in office, for Sir George Courthope is going to move what I suppose most people would call a Vote of Censure on the Government for their conduct in relation to this great British industry. Whether he moves it on behalf of any particular association I do not know, but at any rate this accusation is going to be brought, and it will be answered by the Minister of Agriculture this week. I must say that I think that there will be a good deal of sympathy with Sir George Courthope in taking this action.
Last week a statement appeared in the Daily Mail, which, I suppose, has about as comprehensive a letter bag as any newspaper, and an accusation was made against the Government of the day as to their attitude towards agriculture. It maid:—
"The Government came into office pledged to assist agriculture, which has always been regarded as the special charge of the Conservative Party."
We have always been told that, but, as I said before, ill-luck dogs the Conservative Party and somehow it does not do so much as it might. The Daily Mail goes on to say:
"If we compare 1914 with 1927, the prosperity of the farmer has very markedly declined."
I think this is quite true. Indeed it is not a very strong way of putting it. They go on to say:—
"In 1914 he [the farmer] was paying his way, in 1927. … he is losing money and living on capital."
I should rather like to point out to your Lordships that 1914 marked the conclusion of eight years of Liberal Government.

497
The Liberals came in in 1906, when the Conservative Party had been in office for twenty years. We had had twenty years of "resolute government," which was to settle the neighbouring country of Ireland. I will say nothing about that now, but it very nearly settled the agricultural community altogether. If your Lordships will throw your memory back you will find our old friend Viscount Chaplin every week making the same peroration to the effect that agriculture, the greatest industry in the country, was in danger of supreme disaster. Mr. Chamberlain also considered that agriculture, among other industries, was on the rocks, and he produced his Tariff Reform movement, which mercifully was knocked on the head, and which, of course, meant a tax on food.
During the eight years when the Liberal Government were in office, I do not want to say that the Party to which I belong did anything particularly wonderful, but we certainly did something for agriculture. In 1906 we gave the farmers compensation for disturbance, compensation for winged game and freedom of cropping. The next year we passed the Small Holdings Bill through your Lordships' House and, if I may be allowed to say so, the Small Holdings Bill involved the nationalisation of land. There is no doubt about that. It was not the beginning of nationalisation, because, as I have pointed out, it began long ago, but the Act of 1908 was the beginning of that movement by which we hoped eventually to place 300,000 or 400,000 or perhaps half a million men on the land. We must do that eventually if we are going to save the country, and how can it possibly be done without the nationalisation of land?
After 1914, the year to which the Daily Mail refers with approval, came the four years of the War. During those years the farmers made money hand over fist; they made enormous profits. I admit that they gave large sums towards the War and, as everyone knows, the agricultural labourers went off to a man to fight for liberty and honour. On the whole, therefore, the agricultural community during the War not only did very well for themselves but did very well for their country. Now comes the period from 1918 to 1927. I think I may fairly say that during those nine years, with
498
the exception of a few months when the Labour Government were in office, the Conservative Government were in power and were responsible for the Government of the country. What is the result? The result is that the farmer who in 1914 was solvent, and doing very well, is now more or less ruined and is supposed to be living on his capital.
People may say that this is all more or less "gas," and that you must look at things as you find them. Let us do so. I was talking the other day to Mr. Ernest Fordham, who used to be the chairman of the Cambridgeshire County Council and is one of the best authorities on farming and small holdings in England. He said that before the War the three Counties of Cambridge, Bedford and Huntingdon, with which he was connected, had secured 58,800 acres of land, which was let to 7,000 tenants, and I believe over 90 per cent. of them are still on the land and doing well. All that land was let without one single sixpence of expense to the ratepayer or anybody else. These men were put upon the land at no expense whatever and all were paying their way. Not only that, but in 1914 all the small holdings committees of those counties had credit balances at the banks—they were all solvent and had nest eggs. Further, as regards putting men on the land, in several of the small holding parishes there were from 30 to 36 persons on the land for every 100 acres, whereas in the parishes in Bedfordshire where there were no small holdings, the average number of persons was only eleven.
Then he said that owing to the difficulties, or the extravagance and the expenses to which the county was put during the years from 1918 to the present time, 1927, everything had run out. The expense of everything has gone up, landlords are taxed 15s. to 16s. in the £, and how are small holdings to be developed in those circumstances? Before the War the equipment of a £50 tenement cost about £500, and the annual payment on that was about £17. Now you cannot build a cottage and provide its surroundings under £900, and the annual charge on that is £45 a year, which is prohibitive. As we all know the price of money has gone up as well, and you have to pay 5 per cent. interest, whereas in the old days you could borrow at 3 per cent. Of

499
course there has been mention again of a subsidy. Your Lordships know what subsidies are. We have got a subsidy now on our old friend sugar beet. What is the result? I believe the subsidy has been running two or three years and is now something like £3,200,000 or £3,300,000 a year. That subsidy, I am informed, exceeds the value of the crop to the farmer himself. How on earth is an industry ever to pay its way if it is to be spoon-fed, or you might even say if it is fed by a ladle out of a stable bucket? It is impossible. If an industry is to succeed it must run itself and it must stand on its own legs.
You may reply: That is all very well, but what do you recommend? Probably I shall not be believed, but I am sure I shall not be supposed to be saying anything discourteous or disagreeable if I say that I am afraid that so long as the present Government is in power the outlook is really rather hopeless. But Governments and human beings are not eternal. I remember the Gladstone Government of 1880, and Campbell-Bannerman's Government of 1906. They did good work but they went, and I am convinced that the only salvation for agriculturists is the return of a progressive Party to power. When I say "progressive" I do not know whether it will be Liberal or Labour, but we shall have to have a real progressive policy in England. We shall have to come to what the people in Denmark and the people in France have come. Why are they more prosperous than we are? Simply because the men have got the land. In France they got it by revolution, and in Denmark they got it by confiscation. Well, we do not want that. In this country we have got the men, we have got the land, we have got the money too, and all we want is to buy the land at a proper price for the workers.
People talk about the value of a thing. There is no value of a thing really. The value of a thing is what a willing buyer will give to a willing seller. A great painter will paint a greater man's mistress, and he will get £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 for that. In 100 years it will be worth £30,000 or £40,000. The value of a thing is what it will fetch in the open market. At the present moment there is a slump in land, and land is very cheap. Then, you say, now is the
500
time to buy. Well, that is perfectly true, but in land there are two prices. First, there is the price that a noble Lord would give me for my land, or that I would give a noble Lord for his land; but there is also another price. That is the price at which a man wants to sell to the Government, and that is a very different thing. It may go up 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 per cent. Why? Because the Government want it, and they say: "Oh, then, let the Government pay for it." That has got to stop, and I believe we could bring that about by having stability of price for land. We must make it distinctly understood that the individual must give way to the community, for the good of the community; and if the community wants land, that land must be taken by the community at a fair and proper price. The noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, said we do not want any confiscation. What ought the price of land to be? I very humbly suggest that the price of land ought to be the price the man puts on it himself. When a man dies all his property is valued for probate. If the land is wanted for the public why not say to the individual: "This land was valued at a certain price for probate; we will take it at your own valuation. But, as it is a forced sale, we will give you five or, as it used to be in the old days, 10 per cent, more for a forced sale."
I am not the least afraid of the future of English land. But we are up to our necks in vested interests. It is the vested interests that are in the way, and if you can get rid of them, as I think you can if you have a progressive Government, we can get back to the position of 1914. We shall not only have the farmers in better heart, the landlord more solvent and in a better state, but we shall also be able to put the agricultural labourers en bloc on to the land. That is a duty we have to do, and we must do it if England is to be saved. If we can do that, if we can get a million or two million small holders on the land, then, even if the wages are very low, even if the big farmers cannot pay the wages that they ought to pay, at any rate these men who, in the days of England's peril fought for their country and their King, will carry on, and you will have put an end to a state of affairs as regards agricultural labourers which in some parts of England, I do not hesitate to say, is not only a national scandal but a national danger.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, both the noble Lords who have spoken from the opposite side of the House have told us that in their view the remedy for all the ills from which agriculture is suffering is some scheme of nationalisation. The noble Marquess who spoke last told us that nationalisation was already to a large extent in force. Apparently it has not brought about that improvement in agriculture which the noble Lord opposite anticipates will come from it. We have also had an interesting point on nationalisation mentioned by both noble Lords. The noble Marquess has shown us how the Liberal party would compensate owners of land when land is taken under his scheme. They will be paid the market value, plus five or ten per cent. for compulsory purchase—a not unsatisfactory outlook for those who have to dispose of their land. The noble and learned Lord also is going to give compensation. I do not want to ask him to divulge his scheme prematurely.
LORD PABMOOR: I mentioned that Schedule A should be taken as the basis.
LORD CLINTON: The Schedule A value will be the cash value paid for the land. That again has doubtless certain merits, but was the noble Lord present at a meeting of his Party held at. Lancaster last week, when this matter was discussed? Probably not. I have, however, seen a report in The Times. The secretary of the Agricultural Workers' Union was explaining the scheme of nationalisation of land, and he was afterwards pressed to say whether he proposed to give compensation. He said: "Of course, we will give compensation. The easiest method is to give bonds, and then we can always get that money back by taxing it over again." That is the compensation which that representative of the Labour Party proposed to give. I gather that the noble Lord opposite does not agree with that.
LORD PARMOOR: Oh no.
LORD CLINTON: I am glad to hear it. The Labour Party has diagnosed all our troubles as the gap between prices on the one hand and the costs on the other. That is a natural diagnosis, with which we all agree, and it was scarcely necessary perhaps for the noble Lord to call to his aid a professor of economics to commend it to us. While we value
502
very much in agriculture the teachings of economics, there is some danger in politicians catching hold of some theory of economics and applying it piecemeal to an industry, without regard to the full effect it may have on that industry. One of our main troubles to-day is the result of the State interfering with the economies of agriculture, because they have applied those economies merely to one end of the industry; they have endeavoured to fix wages according to the cost of living, but they have paid no attention to profits, which are the only source out of which that labour can be paid. We accepted the principle of a wages board, as at one time we accepted the Bill for a minimum price for corn. The minimum price for corn has been swept away, but the two should really be complementary to each other. If you lay down a wage which we have to pay, you must also give us some means by which we can pay that wage.
All political Parties from time to time, particularly at Election times, are angling for the agricultural vote, and they bring forward many schemes, of greater or less importance, in order to attract that vote; but the people themselves in agricultural parts of the country are getting very tired indeed of these promises from political Parties. There is a vast amount of bread and very little sack in what they propose to do for us. I am not by any means enamoured of the Conservative policy which has been laid down. It is useful. The Party have done, no doubt, a really great work for agriculture in so far as they have relieved us of some portion of our burdens of rates upon agricultural land. They have not gone so far as in justice they ought to have gone, because—I think the noble and learned Lord agrees with this—there is still good ground for saying it is a serious hardship upon the farmer and the agricultural ratepayer that he should be required to pay rates for the upkeep of our main roads which are specially constructed so that it is dangerous for his horses to use them.
LORD PARMOOR: I think all roads.
LORD CLINTON: Perhaps that would be better, but I will leave the noble and learned Lord and his Party to make their peace with the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon that subject. The proposals for small holdings are of great

503
social importance but, as the noble Marquess has told us, they are at the moment hopelessly uneconomic. The sugar beet subsidy, again, is a real help. I do not take the same gloomy view of that industry as the noble Marquess does. I am fairly confident that when that industry, by the help of the subsidy, has been put upon its feet, it will be found to work out to the real advantage of the farmers in those districts of the country where they are able to grow beet. But all these things, important as they are, really touch nothing more than the fringe of the question. They are not going to make the difference between profit and loss, which is so distressing at the present moment. Neither is the proposal of nationalisation. There is nothing there that will get us over our trouble.
I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord and I think also my noble friend below me (Lord Bledisloe) say that agricultural depression, agricultural difficulties, are really not matters of domestic or local importance and that right over the world at the present moment, even including Denmark, the rewards for labour in agriculture and the returns on capital in agriculture are less than they are in any other industry; and if the world results are the same there must be some world cause. Changes in the monetary system undoubtedly affect, and seriously affect, agricultural prices and they have been contemporary with the big prosperity and the big depression in agriculture in times past. They may be and probably are one of the causes now. I do wish that statesmen in general, before they put forward schemes for the general improvement or even the saving from destruction of agriculture, would work out what are the fundamental causes of our difficulties. When those fundamental causes have been found, then, possibly by international agreement affecting the whole agricultural industry of the world, something may be done to improve matters.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I rise for a few moments only to emphasise what has been said with regard to the question of State ownership. I hope the noble and learned Lord who moved this Motion will later on explain what he means by State ownership. He made a
504
rather curious statement. He said he was in favour of compensation under Schedule A and then went on to state that the compensation should be adequate. I should like to know how many years purchase he has in his mind. According to the noble and learned Lord compensation would be probably based on ten or fifteen years at the very outside, if even that. I also think it is very desirable that the noble and learned Lord should tell us whether he has ever read those Reports of the Ministry of Agriculture which tell us what an absolute failure the attempt to farm by Whitehall was. I had reason to attack the Government of which the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, was then the representative in this House of the Ministry of Agriculture. The noble Earl then said he agreed with me that farming from Whitehall was a very expensive method and one which was not a success.
The noble and learned Lord has never tried to prove any of his statements or to rest them upon a foundation of fact. The real difficulty we have with the Labour Party in regard to agriculture is what they say in this House and to a certain extent in another place and what they say outside are not the same. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, very truly pointed out that their followers in the country think and talk in a very different way from that in which noble Lords talk in this House. The noble Lord quoted from a statement made by a gentleman but I do not think he gave his name. It was Mr. Dallas, one of the leading agriculturists on the Labour side. He was put on the Agricultural Council of England by the Labour Government to represent their views in that body because he was a very well-known agriculturist. I think it would be desirable if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Par-moor, would tell us if he repudiates the views of Mr. Dallas which Lord Clinton quoted to this House—that when bonds are given in payment for the land taken it is the simplest thing in the world to get the money back once more by an Income Tax. I should like to hear whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, approves of that statement or whether he repudiates it. Does he agree that his Party is going to give compen-

505
sation and then by a side wind going to take it away again?
It was said that the landlord system had entirely broken down. I do not think that statement is borne out by the facts. Landlords were hit more than any other class during the War. They were not able, like a great many other people, to make a profit out of what they owned during a period when the expenditure of the country was enormous. In fact, landlords suffered through the War. Unlike shipowners and manufacturers they did not make huge millions; in fact, they lost money. On the other hand, what a great many landlords have done is to sell out land which they never visited. I recall a case which occurred in my own constituency in the old days. There was one great landlord there who had never seen his property in that place until he came down to oppose me at an Election. His successor has sold that property to the great advantage of the locality. A good deal of the land has been bought by owner-occupiers.
I am sorry that the Government, in their reply on this point, did not indicate that it is their intention to do something more to assist the farmer to buy the land which he cultivates. It is quite true that the Coalition Government did at one time say they would advance money to those farmers who bought their land, but that was done to only a very limited extent and for a, short time. Resolutions have been passed by many agricultural bodies on the failure to bring in legislation to enable any farmer who wished to do so to buy his land by means of a Government loan. I am one of those who think that the larger the number of men that can be kept on the land the greater the stability of the country is likely to be. If you have men owning the land which they cultivate you get that land much better farmed. The owner-occupier as a rule farms better than the ordinary tenant-farmer.
As to small holdings, I do not agree with the noble Marquess that they have been a failure. That may be so in his county but at the present moment, speaking for my own county, we have 21,000 acres owned by the County of Somerset with a rent roll of £66,000 year. The tenants are prosperous, we seldom have any vacant holdings and we have many applications for them and can
506
nearly always let them at an increased rent. On the other hand, it is most satisfactory to find that the arrears are practically nil and that they compare most favourably with those of any large estate. I am one of those who look forward in the future to small holdings being still further extended. It was a great advance when the Government allowed a larger amount of land to be held. The limits of 50 acres and £50 a year have been largely increased.
I was rather disappointed, however, not to hear that the Government intended to do something more than to go on with research. I quite agree that research is very important indeed and bodies with which the noble Lord who speaks for the Ministry of Agriculture and myself are connected have done a great deal in that direction, but we want more to be done in the way of giving assistance to farmers by reducing the heavy taxation which falls on the land. I think most farmers will agree with me that the land ought to be treated as the raw material of the farmer, and that in the same way as the manufacturer does not nave to pay rates on his raw material the farmer should not have to pay rates upon his land, but only upon buildings. I hope that on a future occasion we may have more practical suggestions offered to us, because we have been told nothing from the Labour Benches which is of practical use and I regret that we have not heard from the Government much which will encourage farmers to think that better times are coming.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I want to detain the House for a few moments only. I suppose I have listened to agricultural debates in this House for a longer time than anybody now sitting in it—certainly for more than fifty years—and I should be inclined to say that the sentiment of the farmer who has had experience of both Parties would be: "A plague on both your Houses!" I am quite ready to admit that something has been done for the advantage of the farmer but it is very little. It does net really, to use an American expression, "cut much ice."
I am quite prepared to compliment the present Government for what they have done in regard to research and particularly for what they have done in the

507
matter of foot-and-mouth disease. I was reading on Sunday a newspaper which showed how, by a long, slow process of a very meticulous character, it had been discovered that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease would live in meat for some very long period—I forget how long—and would live in hay, I think, for something like twenty-four days. It is not a matter for wonder that the disease is so easily spread if the virus can live so long. I compliment the administration for what they have done as regards that disease, although, of course, they were largely assisted by the good will of the stock owners themselves in consenting to the destruction of their stocks. But at the same time, of course, the Government were responsible for finding money for compensation and they deserve every compliment for having the courage to put that burden on the taxpayer. I know something has been done for veterinary research, but I really think it would pay the country to spend a great deal more than it spends at present on that. I am sure the experience of many of your Lordships must be that when it is a case of "vetting" a horse it is difficult to find a very good opinion.
One peculiarity about the debate tonight is that the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture has been in a very difficult position. He wanted to sympathise with the British farmer because he must know that at any rate in some parts of the country the position is most critical. Indeed, he acknowledged it in the early part of his speech; yet he had in some way or other to support his chief, who went down into the West Country at the beginning of this week or the end of last week and boldly stated that agriculture was holding its own. I wish my noble friend below me had told us what he meant by that. Certainly the farmer is not holding his own capital. If the Minister would come down to the South-east country I could very easily show him that 80 per cent. of the farmers in East Kent have lost, if not half, at any rate one-third of their capital in the last few years. That is not holding their own.
If I may be excused for saying so it is extremely irritating to have a representative of the Government going down into the country and giving public expression to a statement so unsympathetic as that.
508
I am not exaggerating when I say the farmers' loss within the last two years has been colossal and yet we have the Minister of Agriculture saying that we are holding our own. I sympathise with my noble friend, who had to make the best case he could. He said that all parts of the world were suffering, not necessarily as much as we are, but all alike suffering. I imagine he meant Europe and the United States. He would not go so far as the East. Are they suffering in India? I ask that question for some purpose.
LORD BLEDISLOE: To some extent, undoubtedly. In fact, it has been necessary to send out a Royal Commission.
LORD HARRIS: Oh yes, I know about that. I know that when I was in India, thirty years ago, Professor Voelcker had been sent out to report. The Indian Government is very paternal and so it had sent out Professor Voelcker, a very distinguished agricultural chemist, to report. He passed through Poonah on the way home and he gave me a very voluminous Blue-book. He said: "You will find that interesting, but the gist of it is in the last few lines." I turned to those last few lines and I found they were to this effect: "I have nothing to teach the Indian farmer, he knows his business thoroughly well. If you can supply him with more wood for firewood he will be able to save the cow-dung for manure." That was the result of Professor Voelcker's inquiry and I very much doubt if this Commission is going to do much better. The Indian farmer knows how to farm in his own country just as the farmer in this country, or in any other country, knows how to farm in his own country. They are all practical men farming upon the experience of centuries and upon the experience of climatic conditions and the capacity of the soil.
I particularly brought in the subject of India because my noble friend opposite who raised this debate pins his faith for the future of agriculture in this country upon a system of State or county administration in connection with the land. His colleague who sits beside him has had a very varied experience. He has been the head official of the Ministry of Agriculture and Secretary of State for India. I wonder whether he could tell us, if not to-night

509
at some other time, whether he has ever heard that there is any advantage in the system of ryotwari in India when the ryot holds direct from the State instead of under the converse system in which the landlord comes in between. I have studied agriculture in India a good deal. It was my business to study the reports of officials who had to value the land and fix the assessment on it, but I never heard any of them suggest for a moment that there was any advantage in the ryotwari system over the landlord system. My noble friend who raised this debate pins his faith upon a system by which the Government or the county would be the authority behind the occupier. Here is an opportunity of studying the system in active prosecution in India. Why does nobody do it? There is a Royal Commission now inquiring into the matter. Why not ask that Royal Commission to include in its Report anything that it can find out as regards the relative merits of the two systems of holding direct from the Government and holding from a landlord. I very much doubt if they would be able to find any difference whatever.
I do not want to dilate at any great length on the question of tenure. When I saw that the noble and learned Lord had put down a Motion regarding the condition of agriculture, I thought to myself that it was not agriculture that he was going to talk about but the tenure of land, and I think that in the first five minutes in came King Charles's head, and nearly the whole of his speech was devoted to tenure. I am not sure that I do not agree with him as regards the State holding the land—and mark my emphasis of the word "land." One of the principles of the Labour Party is that it was never possible for the State to alienate the land. Is not that one of the pillars of their faith? I am ready to concede it. I am an extremely advanced Radical in this matter. The State never did alienate the land. What it did was to give occupation in consideration of certain service, and the service so given has been given ever since in various forms. At present it is given in the form of taxation instead of in the form of some personal, active, physical service. But surely the Labour Party, if it is going to take the land either without compensation or by payment in bond or whatever the method
510
may be, is not going to take the equipment of the land and what the landlord has put upon it. The land was originally derelict, and would be derelict now if it were not for what the landlord has put upon it—the houses, the buildings, the roads, the fences, the wells and the tanks. The land could not be farmed if it were not for what the landlord has put upon the land, and now it is proposed by both the Liberal and the Labour schemes to take that away from him.
LORD PARMOOR: With compensation, of course.
LORD HARRIS: With compensation, no doubt; but you are taking away the cottages and you are fixing the labourer in the particular cottage that he happens to occupy on the day when you take away the land. Where is the security that this man is going to work on that land in the future, and, if he does not, how is that land going to be farmed? You will have to build another cottage and be put to any amount of extra expense. I am not averse from the idea of taking the land, so long as the Labour Party will recognise the necessity of paying for what the landlord has put upon the land in order to enable it to be farmed.
But I am not getting any further towards a cure. As I said before, I do not think that the pure agriculturist—that is, the farmer—has very much to thank any Party for. The remedies that have been suggested to-night are not very practical, and even the most practical of them are rather nebulous. With all the praise that we are willing to give to research, it takes a very long time to find out whether a particular kind of wheat will suit the country. Education is doing a great deal in this country, but nevertheles agriculture is suffering. Yet another suggested remedy was that old remedy of bimetallism. I remember that the first time I ever met my noble friend below me, Lord Balfour, was at a meeting at the India Office on the subject of bimetallism, and I do not think that he thought much of my contribution to the discussion. The thing has been thrashed out in all the countries in the world. For good or for ill this Government has pinned its faith to the gold

511
standard, and I do not imagine that it is going back upon that decision at a moment's notice.
None of these things will help agriculture very much. Curiously enough, nobody, unless it be Lord Clinton, has really dug up the root of the matter to-day. I am going to say something which, I suppose, will be distorted as a very cruel attitude towards the agricultural labourer. The matter with agriculture at this moment is that we cannot afford to give the wages that are being paid. I know that the noble Marquess opposite will disagree with that altogether, because he thinks that the agricultural labourer is not even now being paid enough. I remember during the War Lord Selborne saying that agricultural wages would never go back to what they were before the War. Well, they have not gone back; but consider the comparative values of the labourer's wage and of the things that he has to buy. My noble friend below me said that the cost of living was 77 per cent. above pre-War prices. Surely it is lower than that. I think I read the other day that it was something like 62 per cent.—
LORD BLEDISLOE: I was not speaking of the cost of living, but of the value of agricultural produce.
LORD HARRIS: And that is 77 per cent. above pre-War level? Well, I will accept that. But what is the agricultural labourer receiving as compared with the pre-War wage? He is receiving about 100 per cent. more. In my part of the country we were paying 16 s. 6d. before the War, and we are now paying 32 s. 6d. I was speaking to-day at luncheon to a friend who farms in Yorkshire, and he gave me precisely the same percentage of increase, though not exactly the same figures. I think I am not far out in saying that the agricultural labourer is getting an increase of about 100 per cent., whereas the farmer is getting an increase of about only 70 per cent. The general cost of living is about 62 per cent. above the pre-War level, and as regards food alone it has gone down to about 50 per cent.
God knows that one does not want one's neighbour, the agricultural labourer, to suffer, but unless it was in the years from 1896 to 1900—and I have never seen children so well dressed as
512
they were then, when wages were down to 14 s. 6d., but everything else was so absurdly cheap that the agricultural labourer was very well off—I have never seen him very much better off than he is now, judging by the amount he spends on his own enjoyment in every way. I rejoice at it, but you have got to face the facts, and as long as we have to pay a disproportionate amount as between the value of labour and the value of what the farmer has to sell, I think you must contemplate that the position of agriculture cannot materially improve, and that in those parts of the country which cannot grow a good sample and good quantity of corn it is absolutely inevitable that the land must go back to grass, and in many parts to poor grass. I am afraid I must go even further than that, and say that the occupier or landlord will not be able to keep up his fences, and so you will have very large areas under grass and unfenced.
I am sorry to be such a Jeremiah, but I have been interested in and occupied and conversant with this subject for so very long that I thought I might venture to occupy your Lordships with these observations to-night. I can assure the noble Lord who opened the debate that if it does come to the Government or the county taking over and administering the land, I do not see where you can turn unless it be to the case he mentioned, of some co-operative society, for an exposition that it is going to be more successful than is private ownership now. As a farmer I should not regret it. I should know obviously that the State or county had got a great deal more capital behind it than the individual, and there would be a chance of my being able to persuade the wealthier capitalist to do something more for me. That it would be more successful and save the taxpayer, I do not believe for one moment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I hope you will forgive me for intervening at this late hour, but I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. I am very glad that the last speaker, Lord Harris, recalled to our memory the speech that the Minister of Agriculture has made during the last week or ten days. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government told us that it would be a terrible day for agriculture when that industry ceased to be treated as an industry and

513
was regarded as a public service; and Lord Clinton went on and took up Lord Lincolnshire's point—namely, that great deal of land had already been nationalised—and said that although a great deal of land has already been nationalised yet agriculture was still depressed, and therefore nationalisation of the land was, he argued, no solution of the problem. But, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, I would point out that although the industry is apparently being run as he says it should be run, to-day, for a profit, I would ask him to observe what is its position. And in answer to Lord Clinton—he knows perfectly well that although a certain amount of land has been nationalised the vast bulk of the land in this country is held in private hands, to-day; yet what is the condition of agriculture?
I am quite prepared to admit Lord Clinton's further point, that some of the trouble with which agriculture is faced to-day is in connection with some of the State interference that has taken place. He instanced the wages boards, but there have been other cases of State interference, such as the breach of the pledge of the Coalition Government. But let us admit even his point as regards the wages boards, and admit that at the present moment the farmer does find a difficulty in paying the wages that are agreed by the wages board. That is perfectly true, but Lord Clinton went on to show us where the real trouble lies, because he said that nothing can be more dangerous than applying certain economic theories, however apparently sound, piecemeal. That is perfectly true, and it is there that Lord Clinton brings us back to the policy and programme put forward by the Labour Party. We agree with him that you cannot apply this policy of State interference piecemeal, and we agree with him that if you are going to compel the farmer, as I believe you should, to pay a labourer a wage on which at least he can get a bare existence—and a very bare one it is to-day—if you are going to force the farmer, or influence him in any way, to pay higher wages than he would otherwise pay, if the State is going to do that, then the State has got to fulfil its obligation.
514
Thai is the whole crux of the matter, and the whole point of the Labour Party's policy.
We say that the primary needs of agriculture to-day are, firstly, that the land should be properly equipped and that that equipment should be properly maintained; and, secondly, that the whole of the marketing functions of agriculture, not only in regard to the commodities which are mainly produced in this country but also with regard to the commodities mainly imported from other countries, require a radical reorganisation. We believe—and certainly nothing has been said in this debate that would in any way weaken our belief—that the State is the only body that can carry out those two purposes. The nationalisation of land has been treated by some of the speakers on the other side of the House as a rather old, benevolent fad of the Labour Party. I think the last speaker spoke of it as King Charles's head, which was bound to be dragged into the discussion at some time. That is all very well. But can we really dismiss it as easily as that? What is our primary reason for putting forward our claim that the land should be nationalised? It is that, however well the landlord in the past has fulfilled his function of purveyor of capital to his industry, he is not doing it to-day, and he is to-day a sleeping partner.
LORD HARRIS: He has put all the capital into the land already.
EARL DE LA WARR: In answer to the noble Lord, I may perhaps be pardoned for reading a quotation from a speech of Mr. Edward Wood, now Lord Irwin. He said:—
"We ought not to shut our eyes to the fact that. … it is raising a problem that is likely to become increasingly acute, and that is the problem of finding the maintenance capital of the land as apart from the current working capital."
Lord Irwin sees that there is a problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is attempting to deny. Lord Irwin refers to the process of deterioration of land. He says:—
"Any of us who are accustomed to live in the country, who watch this process going on, see to-day a deterioration in what I may call the capital equipment of the land and the soil, whether in building or in drainage."

515
You will find exactly the same admission in the Government's own policy. What is the reason that the Government gave for introducing their credit proposals? They say:—
"In the forefront they would place the question of credit. For its proper development and extension agriculture is in need of additional capital. The landowners of the country are, to an increasing extent, less able than formerly to supply what is needed for permanent improvements.…"
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am inquisitive to know who is going to supply it under the scheme that you have in mind?
EARL DE LA WARR: The landlords cannot. I am first establishing that by the admission of all three political Parties, including two Conservative Ministers of Agriculture, and also, as the noble Lord said, the two heads of one of our great research stations. Who is to supply it? We say that the State is the only body that can supply it, and the only body that has any incentive to supply it. I am not blaming the landlords for not putting up money for the capital development of the land to-day. I own land myself, and I know perfectly well that if I spend £100 on one of my farms I shall not get any return under the present system.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: No return?
EARL DE LA WARR: The only return I could get would be an increase of rent, and it is exceedingly unlikely that I should be able to obtain that.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Will not the Government expect a similar return if they expend capital?
EARL DE LA WAR: Yes, of course they do, but the Government, the State, the community, has a further and greater interest than has the individual landlord. I am limited in the return that I can get from the expenditure of £100 to my 5 per cent. increase of rent. But the State has other interests, infinitely greater interests. It is the only body that has those greater interests, and therefore it is the only body that is fit to be a landlord to-day. What are those interests? Surely, the Government are interested in the amount of employment that the land can provide for the people, and in the number of men that, by the prosperity of the industry, they can attract back to the land.
A NOBLE LORD: Subsidies!
EARL DE LA WARR: Not a bit. I do not suggest that we should pass Settlement Bills, Small Holdings Bills, such as the Government are responsible for, to force men back to the land artificially. What I am proposing is that we should so re-organise the industry that it will become prosperous, and, as it becomes prosperous, labour will go back automatically. Are not the Government interested in having a greater population in the countryside? Are they not interested in the adverse trade balance, from which this country is suffering at the present moment? Of course they are, and therefore I put it to your Lordships that the State is the only body that has such an interest in the land as will induce it to spend money on its capital development, as the existing landlord is not doing to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to our method of compensation, and said the Labour Party and the Liberal Party propose only to pay for the land itself.
LORD HARRIS: I do not think I said that. I said I supposed that was what they meant.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord implied that we were just going to pay for the land itself, and steal the buildings, the drainage, the cottages, in fact, the general equpiment of the land. Nothing of that kind has been said in the statements of our policy. It is an unfortunate fact to-day for those of us who are interested in the land, that when we do sell our land we get little more than the value of the buildings and we have to throw the land in. I think that is the experience of nearly all landlords who sell at the present time. And nothing would happen in this transfer from the private individual to the State that does not happen in every single sale of any farm for agricultural purposes that is made to-day.
I spoke of this question of the State putting up the money for the capital development of the land, and I want to go back to that, because I was speaking on the assumption that this was all to happen in the future. I omitted altogether to put a very much stronger point. Wherever you look, wherever any development is taking place in agriculture at the present moment, it is at

517
the expense of the State. The noble Lord does not agree. But what about afforestation? What about the great drainage schemes? What about that of which we have heard a great deal, education and research. I took the liberty of interrupting the noble Lord speaking for the Government and of asking who paid for research. He told me it was paid for almost entirely by the State.
LORD HARRIS: What about fruit?
EARL DE LA WARR: There is a certain amount of work going on that is not paid for by the State, but what I am saying is that the great bulk of it is paid for by the State. What about the Rural Workers Housing Bill which this Government passed in order to help landlords to put capital into their cottages? If I may I will turn for a moment to the question of marketing, because it is a question that probably interests farmers a good deal more than the question or tenure of the land and it does certainly mean a great deal more to them. It is impossible to meet any farmer or to go to any market without hearing the eternal complaint—and I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, speaking of it—of the toll that the middlemen and the distributors take from the industry. The number of Commissions that have been appointed to inquire into this question in the last few years and the reports they have given would all have given the Government, one would have thought, ample justification for introducing legislation that would assist in the reorganisation of the marketing functions of the country. There is one question that I should like to ask the noble Lord who speaks for the Government. Some time ago I put down a Question asking him if he would request the Ministry to inquire into the effect of legislation on the development of co-operation in other countries. I think he had some inquiry made and then the inquiry was transferred to some other body.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Earl is referring to the Plunkett Foundation?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes. There is another point upon which I should like an answer from the noble Lord. This is a matter when it comes to legislation which requires his approval. I have
518
heard it stated—and as far as I can see, following it as an outsider, the statement seems to have very adequate justification—that probably what has done more for the advancement of co-operation in other countries (Canada particularly was cited and I rather think New Zealand also) was compulsory grading, because compulsory grading means that the first step in co-operative marketing has to be taken; that is, the bringing of the goods to a central depot and the centralisation of marketing.
LORD BLEDISLOE: May I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? When he speaks of compulsory grading does he mean compulsion applied by the State or compulsion applied by organisations of producers? I think that in the countries to which he referred the compulsion is not State-imposed compulsion but compulsion on the part of the farmers through their organisations.
EARL DE LA WARR: I speak subject to correction, but I rather think that the position is one of compromise between the producers and the State; certainly I think that is so in Denmark.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I cannot answer the noble Earl directly, but I am sure it is with State encouragement in every case.
EARL DE LA WARR: I did not put the question for an answer now because I did not give the noble Lord notice that I would ask it, but if he would look into it I may put the question another time. To return for a moment to co-operation, we are all agreed about co-operation. Yet, although it has been going on for years and years, it seems to have made exceedingly little progress. We have to remember that primarily it is the business of the farmer not to distribute but to farm his land. It is his business to put all his energy and all his capital into the land. He may organise the primary stages of distribution, but he certainly cannot undertake to fight the great trusts and combines with which the industry is burdened to-day. Take the milk combine. How does anybody imagine that even the Farmers' Union is going to be able to take over the functions of the milk combine or to stand up to it? It is not the farmer's function to do that. I am not at all sure that it is even desir-

519
able that he should do it. We, in our policy, believe that the milk distributing industry has got to such a high pitch of organisation that there is only one body, as in the case of the management of land, that can tackle that problem, there is only one body that is big enough to tackle it, and that body is the State. I mean the wholesale portion of the industry. Retailing is a different matter. That has, of course, to be managed locally between the great consumers' co-operative societies and the municipalities. Something needs to be done.
Dairying is becoming of increasing importance. The noble Lord said, with regard to the increase of dairying in this country, that there had been almost too large an increase. That is the extraordinary thing about this industry. On the one hand we have an undoubted surplus of milk and on the other hand, as we know perfectly well, an under-consumption of milk to the extent of from about a quarter to one half per head as compared with America and some other countries. There are under-consumption and over-production of milk and we believe that the only way in which you can make the production of milk and the consumption of it balance each other is by putting the sale of it into the hands of those whose purpose it is to supply people with milk and not merely to make a profit out of the sale of milk. You have had to do that with municipal gas, you have had to do it with municipal water and you have had to do it with municipal electricity; you have even had to bring the State into your organisation of electricity. You will have to do the same thing in your organisation for the sale of milk.
I now come to my last point, with regard to the importation of wheat and meat. I take these two commodities because, while milk is probably the most important commodity that is produced at home and really is able to control the home market, wheat and meat are probably the most important of those commodities the market in which is controlled by importation. The foreigner produces the bulk of our meat and he produces the bulk of our wheat. It therefore comes to this, that however you organise the farmer in this country, if you get the whole of his meat and the whole of his wheat into great pro-
520
ducing pools, you still are not going to be able to control the price in that way because you are not going to be able to touch the importer. I am assuming for the moment for the sake of brevity that we all realise the unsatisfactory position at the present time, that we all recognise the enormous margin that lies at the present moment between the price paid to the producer and the price paid by the consumer, that we all realise and admit among ourselves the enormous fluctuations that take place not only Year by year but week by week and almost day by day in this country, and that we are all agreed that the problem before us is to decrease that margin and decrease those fluctuations.
I know that last year I was able to get 12 s. a quarter more for my wheat than one of my tenants could get simply because I had the capital to hold on while he had not. None of us can admit that that is a satisfactory position. How are we going to deal with it? The farmer cannot because he cannot control the market. We shall have to do as we did during the War, take it over and perform the function as a national one. A great deal was said against the Wheat Commission during the War, but we have to face the fact that they pulled us through and they did the work amazingly cheaply at one-eighth per cent. That is the Government figure. After all, how else are you going to control this great industry except by performing the function yourself? Lord Vestey appeared before the Royal Commission on Food Prices and he gave them quite clearly to understand that there was practically no profit in the importation of meat. Six months later the Union Cold Storage Company, of which he and another member of his family are directors, issued a prospectus in which they showed that since 1904 they had never paid a dividend of less than ten per cent. and that they were expecting very much better profits. We find that they control no fewer than twelve subsidiary companies, four meat companies, lighterage and cartage companies, and shipping companies with refrigerator steamships.
When you realise what an enormous concern it is you must realise the absolute impossibility of attempting in any way to control their actions except by taking over the functions yourselves. We have

521
a Food Council. How can a Food Council deal with them? They cannot. Lord Vestey may have been perfectly right in saying what he did, but what does it matter to a great concern like that whether it makes money out of meat or out of refrigerators or cold storage? They have so many concerns that it is perfectly easy to show a loss on one and a profit on another and then stand before the public as doing a job for charity. I am not making an attack on Lord Vestey. He is perfectly entitled to make as much money as he can out of performing this function. The question is whether as a community composed of farmers, producers and consumers we are going to tolerate this form of organisation for which we have to suffer. I believe that sooner or later we are not going to tolerate it. I believe that the moment we begin to look at this matter from the point of view of a job that needs doing, as apart from politics, we are all going to decide that it has got to be done.
The last time I brought up the question of stabilisation of prices my noble friend Lord Bledisloe dismissed it as a form of Socialism. It does not matter whether it is Socialism or not. The question is whether it is common sense. After all, all the great producers in the Argentine, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Russia have organised themselves. You have great national pools and the representatives of these national pools are meeting this year in America to attempt the formation of one pool. I am not going to say that they are going to succeed all at once, but that is the tendency. Surely, if they are organising, it is time we organised. I would ask the noble Lord, in looking at this question of the development of agriculture, whether with regard to land or organisation of marketing, to try to forget just for a moment that he is a politician—I believe he is only too ready to do it—and remember that he is responsible for one of the great industries of this country and that there is a work waiting to be done if only we can get rid of this prejudice against Socialism.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg leave to move tie adjournment of this debate.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think if the noble Earl who is leading the House will agree it is better not to put down a date on which the debate should be resumed. We all know that Lord Bledisloe must not be here too much just now and I think we should consult his convenience.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR): My Lords, I believe I am out of order but I should like to point out that if the idea of my noble friend opposite is that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe should address your Lordships again—the debate has taken a rather wider character than we expected—that would be out of order.
LORD PARMOOR: I was not suggesting that, but I thought we should all like to have my noble friend Lord Bledisloe present when we resumed the discussion. It was for that reason that I made my suggestion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned sine die accordingly.

RUMANIA AND THE MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to ask if it is the case that the Rumanian Government has officially declared that it refuses to submit to the decisions of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal set up under the Trianon Treaty.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say one word to suggest to him that, though this Question is evidently one of great importance, the present time is not a very suitable one for raising it in this House. The matter is, as he knows, a very complicated one, but in its present stage it has been referred to the Council of the League of Nations. The Council, acting on its ordinary procedure, appointed one of its members to report to it on the whole question, and that member was my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as representing the British Empire. It would therefore be quite impossible for any member of the Government to say anything on the subject of this Question, because it is sub judice, and it would evidently be most improper for any member of His

523
Majesty's Government to comment upon it in any way. Indeed, if I may be so bold as to say so, I think it would be a little unfortunate even for a member of the House of Lords to say anything about it at this moment, because, after all, the person to whom it is referred is the representative of the British Empire, and a member of the House of Lords cannot get out of the fact that he, too, speaks in a degree for the British Empire as a member of the Imperial Parliament. Accordingly I hope my noble friend will see his way to put off this Question until a time when it is no longer sub judice, and I venture very respectfully to say to him that I think it would be in the public interest to do so.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I ought to be inured by this time to finding my Questions described as inopportune, but I confess that I find some difficulty in understanding why a Question that merely requires a categorical "Yes" or "No" in reply should be likely to cause the difficulties that my noble friend anticipates. But, of course, I cannot resist an appeal coming from such a quarter, and I am prepared to postpone my Question. I will, however, leave it upon the Paper and raise it at what I hope will be considered a more opportune moment.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Midleton, I beg to move that leave he given to my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan of Derwent for his Motion relating to the reform of this House (now standing for Wednesday, June 22 next) to be advanced to Monday, June 20 next. I should like to take this opportunity of asking the noble Earl who leads the House if it will be possible to make arrangements for us to have a proper debate on this subject. This is a question that interests everybody in this House, and I expect that there are a large number of noble Lords who never come here habitually but who may, when they find that it is proposed to abolish them, think it desirable to appear and be heard in
524
their own defence. In those circumstances it seems to me extremely probable that the debate will last for a considerable time—in fact, my noble friend, Lord Midleton, I believe, expects it to last three days. What I suggest to the Government is that Monday, June 20, Tuesday, June 21, and Wednesday, June 22, should be allotted to this particular debate. I am aware that Tuesday, June 21, has been taken for the adjourned debate on the Second Reading of the Liquor (Popular Control) Bill, but the interval between the adjourned debate on the Second Reading of that Bill and June 21 is a considerable one, and it really will not do anybody much harm if the resumed debate is deferred until a later date. I hope that the noble Earl who leads the House will be good enough to listen to my suggestion.
Moved, That leave be given to the Viscount FitzAlan of Derwent for his Motion (now standing for Wednesday, the 22nd of June next) to be advanced to Monday, the 20th of June next.—(Lord Newton).
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to ask one question before the noble Earl speaks. I have no objection whatever to the forwarding of the Motion from one day to the other, but I am not prepared to assent to the further proposition that the debate should occupy the three days from June 20 to June 22, for this would undoubtedly interrupt engagements that have already been made. I am ready to leave the matter in the hands of the noble Earl, but, as far as advancing the date to June 20 is concerned, I have no objection whatever.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I am afraid that this matter must be arranged between the noble Lords interested in those particular debates. I am more familiar with the procedure of a House where, during many days of the week at all events, the Government have control of business. That is not the case in your Lordships' House with regard to any day of the week, so that I must ask noble Lords to arrange this for themselves. I will do my best to help them.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

RABBITS AND ROOKS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:—

E. Doncaster (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry),

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Templemore,

L. Strachie,

L. Ashton of Hyde,

L. Banbury,

L. Olivier.

(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, June 21, and to appoint their own Chairman.

THE HOUSE AND THE STATEMENT ON RUSSIA.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, before your Lordships adjourn, I should like to ask the noble Earl who is leading the House in the absence of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the following Question of which I have given private Notice:—I beg to ask His Majesty's Government why a statement of such national importance as that relating to Russia which was made in another place last night was not communicated simultaneously to your Lordships' House?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, the explanation is a very simple one. I need hardly say that the last thing that the Government desired was to inflict any slur upon your Lordships' House or not to provide your Lordships with any information that you desired to have, but no appeal was made from the Opposition Benches or from any quarter of the House that any statement should be made by the Government, whereas in the House of Commons, as the House is aware, the Leader of the Opposition made an appeal to the Government to which the Prime Minister responded. I should be very sorry if there were any body of opinion in this House which felt for a moment that we desired to withdraw from the attention of the House any subject that should properly come before either House in relation to public affairs. I
526
hope that my noble friend will accept that explanation, and will at all events not suggest for a moment that we desired to keep from your Lordships any information that we gave in another place.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Earl a manner in which I think this matter might perhaps be dealt with satisfactorily? Could he tell us when the Government is willing to make a communication to this House—for instance, next Monday, after there has been a debate in the House of Commons? That would provide an opportunity of discussing the matter in this House, where undoubtedly a matter of this importance ought to be discussed as well as in the other House.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, that, of course, is a wholly different point from that which was raised by my noble friend behind me. If noble Lords opposite desire a debate upon this question, of course they can have it; but it is idle to suppose that at this time of day we have any information to give in this House that is not already public property, has not been commented upon by every newspaper in the country and has not become common knowledge to everybody who is in the least interested in public affairs. In those circumstances, while I am quite ready to give every opportunity, so far as the Government is concerned, for discussing this or any other question of foreign affairs, I do not think that the noble Lord's suggestion has any relation to the question of my noble friend, who complained that at the time when information was being given to the House of Commons it was not being given to your Lordships. I do not criticise the Bench opposite or the noble and learned Lord who sits upon it, but if there has been any omission on the Government's part it is surely because no information was asked for by those who adopt a critical attitude towards Government policy and are supposed to have it specially in charge to insist on bringing before your Lordships' House any subject of public interest that ought to be debated.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.