Sitting of 8 August 1917

CHESHIRE LINES COMMITTEE BILL.
Read 3* with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Industrial Unrest (Commission)—Summary of the Reports of the Commission by the Right Honourable G. N. Barnes, M.P.:
University Education in Wales (Royal Commission)—Second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into and report on University Education in Wales. Report. Minutes of Evidence (December, 1916-March, 1917), with Appendices and Index:
Local Government Board—Forty-sixth Annual Report—
Part I. Administration of the Poor Law; Special Work arising out of the War;
Part II. Housing and Town Planning;
Part III. Public Health; Local Administration; Local Taxation and Valuation:
Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland)—Seventy-second Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, for the year ended 31st December, 1916:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the Borough of Newport and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting a certain class of shops within the Borough: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

AGRICULTURAL ORDERS.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN rose to call attention to the various Orders which are constantly issued by Government Departments other than the Board of Agriculture affecting the industry of agriculture; to ask His Majesty's Government how many of such Departments (including that of the Director-General of Production of Food) are empowered, and by what authority, to
214
issue such orders and instructions; and to move to resolve—
That the issue of Orders and instructions by such Departments, affecting that industry, is prejudicial in the highest degree to the largely increased production of food which has become essential for national safety, and should be discontinued in future unless countersigned by the President of the Board of Agriculture; and that all such Orders and instructions should be laid forthwith on the Table of both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I ask your attention for a few moments to this matter, because I think that the case which I shall submit to you is deserving of consideration. The vast number of Orders and instructions which are issued by various Departments affecting the industry of agriculture has become, in my humble judgment, so grave a matter that the time has arrived when attention ought to be called to it.
I have not the slightest idea how many Departments think they are entitled to interfere in every kind of way with the agricultural industry, but I do know of several instances where what I can only call very grave abuses have occurred. Take one, for instance, which we discussed the other day—the Forage Order, issued by the War Office. Your Lordships will remember the circumstances under which attention was called to that Order, and what happened. To clear up the position I asked, just at the end of that debate, whether it was the fact that the President of the Board of Agriculture had really given his hearty concurrence to that Order. The answer which I received from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for War was "undoubtedly he had," and that the Order was issued "at the request of the Board of Agriculture." That statement turned out to be exactly contrary to the fact. My authority was the President of the Board of Agriculture himself, who gave an unqualified contradiction to the statement. I learned only yesterday of another Order—the Bean Order. What that Order is or what it proposes to do I do not know, except that very serious restrictions are placed both upon the sale and the use of beans before December 17, and after that date they can be used only with a permit from the Board of Agriculture. It was by the merest accident that I heard of this Order.
One objection to the present system is this. These Orders are published only in the London Gazette, and we were told on the authority of the noble Earl the Leader of this House last night that the Gazette is a publication which nobody ever reads and is seldom seen. If that is the case—and I believe the statement to be true—how on earth are busy farmers, engaged heart and soul in trying to do what has been enjoined upon them over and over again—namely, to increase the production of food as much as they possibly can in view of the submarine menace and other dangers by which we are confronted—how are they to know what is going on with regard to these Orders? They are in absolute ignorance of them. Suddenly and without notice most arbitrary instructions are issued interfering with farmers. Numbers of cases have been submitted to me where there has been most arbitrary interference with their work. That is going on all over the country. Imagine what the consequent confusion must be in the minds of farmers, and how much this practice disturbs them in their operations. The present condition of affairs cannot be allowed to continue without serious remonstrance, and I hope that considerable changes will be effected.
Another matter of complaint is that many of these Orders are issued by people who seem to know nothing—certainly not enough—about the industry which they are affecting, and that apparently they do not care how much inconvenience they inflict upon the people engaged in this particular industry and the confusion which they necessarily cause. What I wish to ask is this. How many Departments are there at this moment who think themselves entitled to issue instructions and Orders to people engaged in the agricultural industry, and under what authority are these powers exercised? Often Orders are issued with very little consideration indeed for the people who are chiefly concerned. Yet, my Lords, if we are to believe some of the most distinguished members of the present Cabinet—the Chancellor of the Exchequer for one, and the Prime Minister for another—an increased production of food is "vital to the maintenance and the life of the nation." I submit that this increased production of food is greatly retarded through the issue of these Orders. The words I have quoted are not words which would be used by a Prime Minister
216
unless they had a very serious meaning; and I contend that the issue of Orders and instructions in great numbers, all affecting this industry and coming from different quarters, is prejudicial in the highest degree to that largely increased production of food which all of us desire, to which the country has been looking forward, and which has been absolutely promised by the Prime Minister in these words—
" In the year 1918 we shall be self-supporting as regards food in this country."
I hope that the Prime Minister may not find himself seriously disappointed on this point, but I have very little doubt in my own mind that he will.
After all, the crucial mistake, as has been pointed out more than once, has been the neglect of the agricultural industry by Government after Government in this country—a mistake which the Prime Minister declared must never be made again. In my humble judgment, every time one of these foolish Orders—issued one day, and withdrawn, like the Forage Order was, shortly afterwards—is promulgated, it tends in the direction of preventing that increased food production which we all desire. I want to know who the offending Departments are that exercise these powers, what authority they have, and whether they do not often exceed their powers; and I further ask the Government to accept the remedy which I propose—namely, the counter signature of the President of the Board of Agriculture to Orders which are issued directly affecting the agricultural industry and the production of food. And above all I ask that in future these Orders may be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. This seems to me a most reasonable request, and I cannot conceive what objection there can be to it. At present, as I have said, no one knows what Orders are issued, least of all the people engaged in the actual work of agriculture. But if the Orders are laid on the Table of both Houses, everybody will have an opportunity, through their representatives, of learning what Orders are issued and which are in force and which are not. I venture also to think that some of these Departments would very probably be more careful than they have been in the past with regard to the Orders they issue if they knew that the Orders would be laid on the Table of Parliament and be open to criticism, and, if necessary, to condemnation.
Moved to resolve, That the issue of Orders and instructions by Government Departments other than the Board of Agriculture, affecting the industry of agriculture, is prejudicial in the highest degree to the largely increased production of food which has become essential for national safety, and should be discontinued in future unless countersigned by the President of the Board of Agriculture; and that all such Orders and instructions should be laid forthwith on the Table of both Houses of Parliament.—(Viscount Chaplin.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am unfortunate in not possessing the close and intimate knowledge of the agricultural industry that is possessed by the noble Viscount who has just spoken, and by many, if not by most, of your Lordships. I rise to say a few words upon this Resolution for another and a totally different object. I am as anxious as the noble Viscount to know what is the authority which regulates the issue of these Orders at the present time. We know that apparently the whole agricultural industry has been taken under control by various Departments of the State. I want to know by what authority they have assumed that control. I do not think it can be too often remembered that, although we are in the middle of a tremendous conflict, we are governed by the civil law, and it seems to me of the utmost importance that nothing should be done in violation of, or even to strain, that law at the present moment. If that law is insufficient for the necessary purposes of governing this country, the law should be altered. Nor is there any reason to doubt that the Houses of Parliament would alter it if it were shown that an alteration was required. It seems to me quite impossible to reconcile with the general law the issue of the Orders that have from time to time emanated from the various Government Departments with regard to the agricultural industry.
The mischief of the matter is that the small farmer, the small man, is defenceless in the face of these Orders. He is told that he must not sell his hay except at certain prices; he is hindered and restricted in every act that he does; and he has no power whatever to resist. If, on the other hand, bigger industries are affected, they have very well known means by which they can represent their grievances to the Department, and it is not unlikely that
218
they may receive favourable consideration, not because the Department desires to favour one man at the expense of another, but because, if the Department thinks that it is treading upon uncertain ground, it is not anxious to provoke a collision with a rich and powerful interest who may show that its ground is insecure.
I have risen in order to enforce the request—the very reasonable request, I think—that has been made by the noble Viscount. What is the authority under which these Orders are issued? I would beg whoever replies to the noble Viscount on behalf of the Government not to think that it will be a satisfactory answer to say, "Under the Defence of the Realm Act." That is no answer at all. The real answer must be some section of the Defence of the Realm Act that governs the particular case. There is nothing, I think, more mischievous, nothing that may lead to greater danger in the future, than the exercise of special powers under general words in an Act of Parliament which was never passed for the purpose of conferring those special powers, and the abuse of which may cause, as I think, very serious loss to the State and a very grave disturbance in the government of this country, which should at the present moment be more stable than it ever was before.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word on this subject, as I raised very nearly the same question a few days ago. First I must thank his Grace the Duke of Marlborough for a very courteous letter which he wrote me, although it did not indicate the adoption of the suggestions which I had hoped might be adopted. I pointed out the other day that there are seven Departments which issue Orders affecting the industry of agriculture. This is a state of matters which ought not to be allowed to continue—that is, if there is any real desire to assist agriculture, and not to throw all possible obstacles in its way. Therefore I entirely agree in urging that in future all these Orders should be countersigned by the President of the Board of Agriculture; and not only that, but that the Board of Agriculture should have a complete indexed copy of all the Orders which are in force at any given time. It is quite impossible that farmers should obtain information from the London Gazette as regards these

219
Orders. They do not see the Gazette, and most of them do not know of its existence. The only way in which farmers can be certain of obtaining information is by enabling them to obtain from the Board of Agriculture a complete list of all Orders in force at a particular time. It must be remembered that disobedience to these Orders may lead to imprisonment with hard labour, although the person against whom proceedings may be taken may not have the slightest notion that the Order had been issued, and may be in complete ignorance as to its terms. That is surely a very harsh measure as regards agriculturists. There is another important suggestion in the noble Viscount's Notice, which I also ventured to make the other night. It is that all such Orders and instructions should be laid forthwith on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. The objection then taken by the noble Duke was that, if these Orders had to be laid on the Table of Parliament before they became operative, time would be lost, and time might be an important factor. But I pointed out then—and I think the noble Viscount (Lord Chaplin) takes the same view—that I did not ask that the Orders should not become operative until they had lain for a certain time on the Table of the House, but that they should be laid on the Table in order that information might be given, which, of course, is an entirely different point.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I also emphasise this point, which I hope the noble Duke will bear in mind when he gives his answer, that these Orders in substance cannot be questioned in any Court of Law, because the terms of the Defence of the Realm Act are so wide that they cover everything But the Orders are open to question in Parliament, and they ought to be laid on the Table so that questions may be raised upon them if necessary. Let me give an illustration of what I mean. It has been laid down, as one of the conditions of issuing the Regulations as regards the price of food, that the necessities of the industry and the cost of production should be properly considered. Those are two very important safeguards. But there is no place where it can be considered whether those safeguards have been applied or not, except in Parliament itself. In those conditions,
220
unless the Orders are laid on the Table of Parliament, it is open for the individual Minister, whoever he may be, entirely to disregard the very safeguards which Parliament has laid down in the Defence of the Realm Act. This is a matter of the greatest importance, particularly at the present time. There are various Orders affecting agricultural prices. The question arises in regard to each of them, Have the conditions of the Act been complied with or not? That cannot be questioned except in Parliament, and Parliament ought to have an opportunity of raising that point. This can only be done if the Orders and instructions are forthwith laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me very difficult to understand why these conditions cannot be complied with, and I sincerely hope that, on further consideration, the representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House will be able to give a satisfactory answer.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I should like to support what has just been said by Lord Parmoor. I speak feelingly on this matter as a member of a county war agricultural committee. My table is covered with bundles of Orders and Regulations which we have received from time to time. These Orders and Regulations, however, are not complete, because the War Office sometimes send us the Orders they issue and sometimes they do not. Again, many of the Orders and Regulations have been considerably modified, and some have been revoked altogether. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Buckmaster) pointed out that farmers and small-holders have no means of acquainting themselves with the contents of these Orders. I may say that it is exceedingly difficult for a member of a war agricultural committee to grasp their meaning, and to know which are in force and which are not. I hope that the time is coming when this large number of Orders and Regulations will be no longer showered upon us, and I trust that when the deluge does come to an end we may receive the Orders in some sort of form that we can understand. I can assure the noble Duke that it would be an enormous convenience to all members of war agricultural committees and their executives, failing the adoption of the suggestion I have just made, if these Orders when issued were laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount's Question as to the number of Departments empowered to issue Orders and instructions, let me assure him that the. Ministry of Food, the Home Office, the Privy Council, the Army Council, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Board of Trade have all a right to issue Orders, The Food Production Department, which the noble Viscount wants to treat separately from the Board of Agriculture, is, being a part of that Board, naturally entitled to issue Orders, and any Order issued by them has the authority and sanction of the President. The noble Viscount asked me to tell him the authority from which the power to issue Orders of the kind in question is derived. In nearly all cases it is done under the Defence of the Realm Act. I understand that Lord Buckmaster contends that this is a very inadequate reply, and that he would like to know under what section and under what particular phrase of the Defence of the Realm Act these Orders are issued. I have taken the precaution to lay a copy of this book, the Defence of the Realm Manual, in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House, and I fear I must leave it to some noble and learned Lord to explain to other noble Lords the exact clause in the Defence of the Realm Act which entitles the various Departments of State to make these Orders.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is, Look and see.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I will with pleasure hand a copy of the book to the noble and learned Lord. With regard to the observations which fell from Lord Chaplin, I do not think I need pursue the discussion of the Forage Order. That, I think, has been thoroughly threshed out. But the noble Viscount complained about the Bean Order. He said that he knew nothing about it, and that very few of the farmers knew anything about it; and he asked what it meant. It means simply this. A great many of the beans which are grown in the autumn will be required for seeding for the crops of the year 1918, and it is to ensure that, an adequate supply of beans will be in existence for the purpose of using as seed that an Order has been issued to prevent these beans being consumed or absorbed. I think that is a very
222
reasonable and natural precaution. The noble Viscount regarded the Order with feelings of apprehension and dismay. I think a good many of these Orders have a very simple explanation. Certainly that is the explanation which can be given of the Bean Order.
The noble Viscount complained that farmers do not know about the issue of these Orders and are not informed of them, and the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, brought the same argument to bear. About a fortnight ago the noble Viscount complained that he himself did not know of the Orders that had been issued. I hope that I have removed that criticism, because I took the precaution to go to St. James's Square, to the Paper Department of the Board of Agriculture, and I there spent an hour getting together and collating every single Order that had been issued by any Department of State which could in any way be construed as being associated or connected with agricultural matters.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: How many were there altogether?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I did not count them. But the noble Viscount will find them all in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House. I wrote to various noble Lords interested in the matter telling them that these various Orders could be found there. I have brought down a further number to-day, so that there is now a complete list for the noble Viscount to peruse in the Printed Paper Office. To-day the noble Viscount complains that, although he is in possession of these Orders, the farmers themselves are not acquainted with them. I dare say that is a perfectly genuine complaint. But it is important to realise how very difficult it is for us to place this enormous number of Orders in the hands of every farmer in England. If the noble Viscount will suggest the machinery by which the whole of the farmers, say, in Lincolnshire can be provided with every pamphlet that is issued, the Department, I am sure, will welcome his proposal.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Lay them on the Table of the Houses of Parliament.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Yes; but that would not place the farmers thoughout the country in possession of the

223
contents of the Orders. I understand that the charge of the noble Viscount is that Orders are continually being issued, and that the farmers have no opportunity of acquainting themselves with their contents. All the Orders are published in the Gazette. It is said that the Gazette is not read by the people concerned. But the Orders are also published in the newspapers. The farmers have an opportunity of reading the Orders in the public Press. Furthermore, as Lord Northbrook reminded your Lordships, the county agricultural committees are possessors of all these Orders, although I do not deny that they sometimes find difficulty in understanding their meaning. I do not see that the Board of Agriculture can do more than issue these Orders to the Press and to the county war agriculture committees, and also insert them in the Gazette.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Lay them on the Table.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I have deposited in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House every single Order issued by the Board of Agriculture and by any other Department which in any way relates to agriculture.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Do I understand that the noble Duke agrees that these Orders as they are issued shall be laid on the Table of both Houses? That was my request. If that were done, then every one would know from day to day what Orders were issued.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I understand the noble Viscount's point. Up to date I have certainly fulfilled his wish. I asked the Clerk of the House whether I might leave the documents on the Table, but I understood from him that it was the custom to place them in the Printed Paper Office. So far as future Orders are concerned, I can promise the noble Viscount that the moment they are issued I will make it my business to see that they are brought down to the House and placed in the Printed Paper Office, so as to be at the disposal of noble Lords who are interested. I am bound to say that I cannot agree with the noble Viscount in his statement that because of the number of these Orders, and of the fact that they are sometimes conflicting, the food production of the country has not
224
been developed to the full extent that it might have been. The noble Viscount has probably seen the Report which Sir Arthur Lee has published in the Press, giving a detailed account of what has been done by the Food Production Department during the last few months.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I have seen some very contradictory Orders issued by Sir Arthur Lee and by the President of the Board of Agriculture.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I was alluding, not to that, but to the statement which Sir Arthur Lee has published in the Press, in which he clearly shows that the programme which the Food Production Department set forth to achieve only four months ago is in a fair way of being carried out to the satisfaction of the President of the Board of Agriculture. If that is the case—and it is the case—how can the noble Viscount say that the Orders of which he disapproves have in any way impaired the production of food in the United Kingdom? Indeed, the very contrary is the case.
The noble Viscount asked whether it would not be possible to provide that none of these Orders should be issued by any Department unless they received the approval and the counter signature of the President of the Board of Agriculture. To ask one Minister to submit his proposals to the veto of another Minister is a form of procedure, so far as I am aware, which has never been attempted in this country. It is clear that this form of machinery would not work, and that no Minister would permit the Orders which his Department issued to be at the mercy of a Minister who controlled another Department. The most that any Minister would submit to would be that his proposals should be decided by those who form the Cabinet. They, and they alone, can be the final tribunal as to the merits or demerits of the Orders issued.
I do not think there is any remaining point which I have not answered. I can assure your Lordships that I am most concerned to place in your possession every Order dealing with agriculture as it is issued. I quite understand the desire of the House—it is a most legitimate desire in the circumstances in which we are living—that you should be in possession of the decisions of every Department of State regarding agriculture, and I have made

225
it my endeavour, and I have asked the officials to make it their endeavour, to lay at once in the Printed Paper Office of this House any fresh instruction, or any fresh Order, or anything whatsoever in the way of a pamphlet or book, which can in any way be associated with agriculture.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Might I ask one question following the points raised by the two noble Lords opposite? The noble Duke told us just now, as to the cascade of Orders with which we are deluged, that in nearly all cases they were issued under the authority of the Defence of the Realm Act. Could he, without any prolonged reference to the pale blue volume which he handed to Lord Buckmaster, tell us the exceptional cases under which Orders are issued which are not covered by the Defence of the Realm Act? Are they covered by necessitas, emergency, that kind of thing?
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: No, that is not the case. There are, however, one or two which do not come under the Defence of the Realm Act. I am afraid I cannot find them, but I shall be glad to show the list to the noble Lord.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Agricultural freedom will begin to shriek if you go on in this way. As the noble and learned Lord (Lord Buckmaster) said, agriculture employs more labour than any other industry, but it is the only industry which is not organised against a combination of arbitrary treatment. If you go on treating us in this way, I consider that the liberties of a large section of the people will be menaced.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I understand that it is not reasonable to ask the noble Duke to define at the moment the contents of this large, and, I think, growing blue volume. But can he assure the House that, on every occasion before these Orders are issued, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is taken as to whether the Orders are or are not under the Defence of the Realm Act?
LORD PARMOOR: These Regulations—and this is part of their complication—come from three sources: the Defence of the Realm Act, Orders in Council made under the Defence of the Realm Act, and Regulations from the Departments themselves
226
which have been empowered by Orders in Council. If these three matters were kept distinct, that alone would very much assist agriculture.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Duke, or some other noble Lord representing the Government, will be able, before the debate closes, to give some reply to the questions of my noble friend, and also to the questions which have been put by the noble and learned Lord below the gangway. The noble Duke made a most gallant defence of his Department, and I can assure him that there is no disposition on this side of the House, or in any part of it, to make any attack on the Board of Agriculture or to under-rate the great difficulties under which they labour. Those are known to us all, and we entirely appreciate them. But I am sure the noble Duke sees that the agricultural community, which has been accurately described by my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale, does need a special kind of consideration which other industries, able to combine and to stand up for themselves, do not require in precisely the same way.
The noble Duke, in opposing my noble friend Lord Chaplin's suggestion that the issue of Orders and instructions by every Department should be counter-signed by the. President of the Board of Agriculture, said that it was not reasonable to expect that Ministers should submit their instructions to the President of a Department other than their own, and that such a conclusion would be destructive of the independence of the other Departments. Yes; but how do they come to be issuing Orders about agriculture at all? These are agricultural Regulations; and it might equally be said that the President of the Board of Agriculture should be able to issue Regulations affecting military matters, and that they would not have to be passed and agreed to by the Secretary of State for War. Surely the whole essence of the question is that these are agricultural matters. Our contention, therefore, is that it is only with the expressed agreement of the President of the Board of Agriculture that they ought to appear.
I know quite well that on a former occasion—which I do not want to reopen any more than the noble Duke did—his argument was that the presence of a representative of the Board of Agriculture on a Joint Committee sufficiently safeguarded

227
that Office. I have had a great deal to do in the past with Committees on which different Offices were represented, and I should be very sorry to say that the issue of an instruction by one Department could be justified simply because it had been considered by a Committee which included the representative of some other Department who, in the discussions of that Committee, probably found himself in a minority of one, and who might possibly go and complain to his chief when it was too late, while the public would naturally know nothing whatever of what had occurred.
The noble Duke has done his best to meet my noble friend's desire that further publicity should be given to these multifarious Orders as they are issued by placing them in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House, not, I imagine, with a view of their being generally circulated, but with a view of their being obtainable by those noble Lords who may desire to see them. I am afraid, however, that he did not meet my noble friend's complaint that a very large number of persons directly interested in some of these Orders in the country do not find it easy to obtain copies of them, and I think if the noble Duke would be so good as to ask his Department to devote their attention to some further means for ensuring their publicity and circulation he would be doing a good service. But I trust that my noble friend (Lord Chaplin) will agree with me that his request—the one of which I spoke before, namely, that the expressed agreement of the Board of Agriculture should be received before any of these Orders are issued—should continue to be pressed. I regard that as of great importance; and perhaps there, also, the noble Duke might be so good as to ask the Chief of his Department whether some such machinery cannot be devised.
As regards the question of the Defence of the Realm Act, of which noble Lords more competent to deal with it than I am have spoken, a layman is tempted to ask whether in the opinion of His Majesty's Government there are limits of any description to what it is conceived may be done under that Act. I think that the noble Duke did not treat us quite fairly in merely presenting that stout volume for our inspection, instead of doing what we hoped he would—give chapter and verse for the section of the Act which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government,
228
allows certain Regulations to be issued. Whether all the Regulations that have been issued under the Defence of the Realm Act would stand the shot of a legal inquiry, reaching possibly even up to the Chamber in which we are now meeting, is a matter into which I will not attempt to inquire. But at any rate I think that members of the Government, who, after all, have the power of obtaining the advice of noble and learned Lords and of right hon. and learned gentlemen and all manner of other learned persons, might be able to provide us with an indication as to the particular sections of the Act on which Departments rely when they issue particular Regulations.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I want to raise what is only an infinitesimally small point, but which arose out of what has just been said by the noble Marquess opposite. We are aware that the noble Duke who represents the Board of Agriculture has taken great pains to collect the whole of these documents bearing upon agricultural questions, and to deposit copies of them in the Printed Paper Office here. We are grateful to him for that. But I do not think that many of your Lordships will be disposed to go from time to time to the Printed Paper Office and search amongst this wilderness of papers for a particular document that may be of interest to him. What I want to know is this. Will these papers that are thus lodged in the Printed Paper Office be included in the list of what are called non-circulated printed sessional papers? Pink forms are circulated from time to time, and any Peer who desires a copy of a particular Paper has only to put a mark against it and he obtains it. What I want to know from the noble Duke is whether the documents he deposits in the Printed Paper Office will be treated in that way, and whether, by the ordinary procedure, we shall be made aware of or be supplied with a complete list of the documents he has put in.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I wish to ask a question with regard to an extraordinary statement which was made by my noble friend Lord Chaplin. He said that the Prime Minister had stated publicly that this country would be self-supporting in the matter of foodstuffs in the year 1918. Surely that must be a mistake; and, if so, it ought at once to be contradicted. It is a

229
serious statement, and may lead the people of this country to think that we are in a much better position than is the case. Statements of this kind do a great deal of harm. For instance, there was a statement made the other day in public by the Prime Minister—of course, in all good faith—in which he told us that we could build four times the amount of shipping next year that we built last year. That is perfectly true. But he did not tell the public that we built only 500,000 tons then, compared with nearly 2,000,000 tons in 1913. These statements ought to be made very carefully, and that is the reason why I call attention to them. I should like to ask for some correction to be made with regard to the statement that this country will be self-supporting as regards food in 1918. Our foodstuff supply produced in this country before the war was only one-fifth of our requirements, and I do not believe that by any exertion in the world you can get much more than two-fifths, even with all the proposals now being made.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I have not the statement of the Prime Minister before me, and I will therefore refrain from commenting upon it; but I have no doubt that anything he said must have been dependent upon carrying out the extended policy of increased cultivation to which he referred on February 23 last.
In answer to the noble Marquess, the Papers in question can. I understand, be treated as Command Papers. They will not technically be Command Papers, but they can be treated as such and will be set out on the Pink Paper circulated to your Lordships, and any of your Lordships who desire to have the documents sent to your houses will receive them on the normal signature. I would point out that in the Minutes of yesterday's proceedings no less than three of these Orders are announced. Therefore your Lordships, by reading our Minutes, are apprised of the issue of these documents.
I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Crewe) for saying that there is no disposition to attack the Board of Agriculture. But I am afraid there has been a disposition to do so. My noble friend Lord Chaplin said that the authorities apparently did not care how much injury their officials inflicted.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I was not referring to the Board of Agriculture, but to the Orders that were issued by the other Departments.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think my remark equally applies to my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, who said that every possible obstacle was being thrown in the way of agriculture. I believe that both those views are exaggerated. It is remarkable, if this hostility to agriculture exists and these obstacles are so freely thrown in its way, that the progress in cultivation should have been so marked, because marked it undoubtedly has been. I really think that Lord Buckmaster must not press laymen upon this Bench too severely to quote the sections under which these Orders are issued. We were not given notice. If we had been, we should have warned the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or have applied to the Attorney-General for replies. I know that the noble and learned Lord can himself answer this question perfectly well. If I toss him over one of these leaflets and he takes the Statute off the Table of this House, he will answer the question in a moment to his own satisfaction.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have looked at the Statute, but I have not been able to answer the question to my own satisfaction.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If that is so, it has applied for years, ever since the Defence of the Realm Act came into operation. There is nothing new about it, so I am afraid that if anything ultra vires has been committed he (Lord Buckmaster) shares the responsibility with his successors. I quite understand and appreciate what Lord Chaplin said about getting this information into the hands of the farmer. Nothing in the world is more difficult to achieve. These Orders, alas! are frequent, and there are 450,000 farmers, large and small, affected by them; and to distribute individually to every farmer in the land a copy of every Order which is issued is a virtual impossibility. I would ask any noble Lord with a mathematical mind to work out the table and to find out how long, at eight hours a day, it takes 200 clerks, working quickly, to issue 450,000 circulars. The length of time and the staff involved are amazing, and I am afraid that in a non-bureaucratic country as we are to-day, to whatever we are tending in that respect,

231
it is impossible to notify every individual of every Order which is issued.
The Board of Agriculture is fully cognisant of the difficulty to which Lord Chaplin has referred. It is attempted by the existing agencies to give the utmost publicity to these Orders. On the whole it is very remarkable how well the average farmer is informed. These Orders are published in the London Gazette. None of us sees the London Gazette, but the newspaper world sees it and studies it, and the newspapers extract from the Gazette those things which are of material interest to their readers. Therefore a few copies of the Gazette distributed among the newspaper editors of this country reach a circulation 100,000 times greater than that of the Gazette itself. The local newspapers and the fanning newspapers are constantly apprising their readers of these subjects. Any noble Lord who takes up a farming newspaper week by week—there are plenty of them—will see these Orders reproduced, explained, commented upon, and criticised. It is the same with the farmers' societies, and indeed with the war agricultural committees to which the noble Earl opposite alluded. But he really depreciated the work of his own committee. It is a first-class war agricultural committee over which the noble Earl presides, which has been of immense assistance to the farmers; and although these Orders are bewildering to a degree, I repeat that it is most remarkable and most creditable to all unofficial parties concerned how well the information has been diffused. My noble friend beside me (the Duke of Marlborough) is going to put the arguments before the President of the Board of Agriculture. I am sure, though I have not spoken to him on this particular point, that on his behalf I can undertake that everything further which he can do shall be done to ensure that these Orders are brought as early as possible to the notice of those whom they concern.
The noble Viscount says that Orders affecting agriculture should not be issued unless countersigned by the President of the Board of Agriculture. That is, that any Order dealing with agriculture is subject to the veto of the President of the Board of Agriculture. I think that the answer given by the noble Duke beside me was adequate. I do not think, where more than one Department is concerned—and more than one Department is concerned in agriculture—that a Minister
232
should have the right to veto one of his colleagues. The proper tribunal between two Ministers at issue is the Cabinet, and not one of the Ministers. Lord Crewe said, Why should Departments issue Orders relating to agriculture except the Board of Agriculture? I think that the answer is simple. Agriculture occupies a dual capacity. The War Office issues Orders to agriculturists in its capacity of consumer; the Board of Agriculture issues Orders to farmers in its capacity of producer; and it is very risky to suggest that the President of the Board of Agriculture should have the right to veto a proposal, we will say, about commandeering wool. What would be the result? The War Office—it did so two years ago under the Defence of the Realm Act, which I fancy was passed by Lord Buckmaster—came forward and said, "We are the largest consumers of wool in the country, and we are determined to have the whole crop. We are prepared to pay a percentage above the price ruling before the war." Acting under the Defence of the Realm Act they did that. I forget what the exact figure was, but it was something above the pre-war price. If the President of the Board of Agriculture had been vested with a right of veto, what would have happened? His business is not primarily to safeguard the interests of the consumer; his duty is to stimulate production. Where you have the consumer on the one side, represented by the Food Controller or the War Office, and the producer on the other, represented by the President of the Board of Agriculture, there is bound to be a conflict; and if you give the President of the Board of Agriculture a right of veto over the consumer he will then and there, whenever he agrees to an Order, be attacked by the farming world for having given away their case. You will weaken him, and the one thing we do not wish to do is to weaken the President of the Board of Agriculture, upon whose shoulders rests the duty of increasing production. Therefore I am entirely opposed, on merits, to inflicting this duty on the President of the Board of Agriculture, for the, to my mind, very strong reason that it might weaken him.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I never proposed that the President of the Board of Agriculture should have a veto as against the Government as a whole on a proposition made by another Minister. That was not

233
my point. In the event of a difference of opinion, say, between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture on a particular matter affecting agriculture, the point would, I assume, be referred to the Cabinet, just as it would in ordinary times when there was a large Cabinet in which Ministers met. It is quite clear that the Minister whose proposed action was approved by the Cabinet would have his way, and it would be the act of the Government. My fear was that a Regulation might be issued by the War Office to which the Board of Agriculture did not give its approval and without the chance of submitting the point to a superior authority.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will not pursue the point. It was not the view of the noble Marquess which I was criticising so much as the statements on the Paper. The Motion on the Paper suggests a counter-signature, not with regard to the President of the Board of Agriculture against the Cabinet, but between the two or three conflicting Departments referred to in its earlier paragraph. It was as regards counter-signature between two Ministers, not counter-signature between the Board of Agriculture and the Cabinet, to which I was referring.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I recognise and thoroughly appreciate the anxiety, which I have no doubt is genuine, both of the noble Duke and of the noble Earl who has just sat down to do all they can to assist the agricultural industry in its present position. But I own that some words that fell from the noble Earl just now rather added to my apprehensions, because when discussing the Board of Agriculture and the War Office and the effect of my Resolution upon them the noble Earl said that the War Office spoke as a consumer. Every Department in the Government speaks as a consumer. According to the noble Earl, if speaking as a consumer is the warrant, then every single Department of the Government would be justified in issuing Orders affecting and interfering with the business of the Board of Agriculture. I do not share those views at all. The whole object of my Motion is to check interference of that kind, and to leave the Board of Agriculture to manage its own particular business. I confess that I was not altogether satisfied with the reply to my Question. What I asked for in particular was that these
234
Orders, when they are issued, should be forthwith, as a matter of course, laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess just now called attention to that, and suggested an alternative. I still adhere to my view. I think it would save trouble and be more advantageous if the Papers were laid in the ordinary way on the Table.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: They would have to be reprinted for that purpose.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Why should they not be?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: On account of the expense. If we can get them without reprinting, it is just as good.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: But you do not get them in the same way. Everybody's attention is not called to the matter in the same way. But the printing would have to be done in any case. They would have to be printed on the Pink Paper, and the Pink Paper has to be circulated. If I can get nothing better than that, I shall accept it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Perhaps I did not make my meaning clear. These Orders are not going to be reprinted. On the Pink Paper will appear merely the title of the Order.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I understand that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If they are laid on the Table of the House, apart from the question of delay involved, which is serious, they would have to be reprinted and entered on our proceedings, which would be unwarrantable.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: We shall have other opportunities for discussing this question, if necessary, and trying to enforce our views. But I will go so far as to say that we are prepared to accept the suggestion made by the noble Marquess—namely, that the Pink Paper shall contain the title and the fact of the issue of all Orders and instructions affecting the business of the Board of Agriculture. I must, however, say one or two words with regard to the other statements made by the noble Earl. He dwelt on publication in the London

235
Gazette. I do not think that course will help the farmers much with their business. What the farmer reads is his local paper as a general rule. Some of them may read the weekly papers, but the local paper is the one on which they depend for their information. Further, farmers, particularly at this time of the year, almost at any time of the year, are not particularly given to reading. They have a great deal more work to do at this moment than they know how to get through. Do not run away with the idea that labour is plentiful, or, indeed, that anything is nearly as plentiful as it ought to be at the present time; and this makes the business of the farmer ten times harder.
As a reply to me, both the noble Duke and the noble Earl pointed to the increase of what they called cultivation. That is perfectly true. But cultivation is one thing, and production is another. There is such a thing as counting your chickens before they are hatched. I prefer to wait until I see what the result of the cultivation is. And in this I am justified, unless I am grossly misled from what I have seen for myself in various parts of the country and from what I have heard, and from what I was told only the other evening by a noble Lord, a great friend of mine, Lord Desborough. He is the President of the Land Union, and takes the deepest interest in agriculture. He said to me, "I have some beautiful land in the valley of the Thames. It used to grow the most splendid crops of wheat. What is its position to-day? I never saw anything more lamentable in my life. It is good land, but through want of labour it has never been possible to clean it; and where I used to grow the most splendid crops of wheat there are as many thistles as wheat, and the thistles are higher than the corn." There are cases like that all over the country. I beg noble Lords not to run away with the idea that because you have ploughed up fresh land you are necessarily going to increase production.
Let me give your Lordships an instance of what I have seen myself. Seventy-five acres of land ploughed up and sown with oats in Richmond Park! I never saw such a ghastly fiasco in my life. I recommend the noble Earl to go and see it for himself. I doubt whether it will ever pay for harvesting, or ever be cut, for that matter; but the production, in any case, will be of the smallest description ever
236
obtained for the money spent. From what we have been told in this House, £1,100 was spent in growing that seventy-five acres, and I shall be greatly pleased if it produces much more than a quarter or a quarter and a-half to the acre. I was reminded about Lincolnshire, and I would say a word upon that point. A member of this House is chairman of one of the principal war agricultural committees in that county. I have not his letters with me, or I would read a few extracts from one of them in order to show your Lordships how entirely mistaken you are in believing that as a general rule farmers know what these Orders are which are being issued at the present time. He tells me exactly the contrary. Fresh Orders are perpetually coming out. The farmers know nothing about them. Even this noble Lord, as chairman of one of the war agricultural committees, tells me that he has the greatest difficulty in keeping pace with these Orders, and he adds that the confusion that has arisen from their constant issue is getting worse and worse every day, and ought to be checked without a moment's delay.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether a definite statement can now be made as to setting up the Conference on the constitution of this House, and what will be the terms of reference. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very much concerned to know what has become of the proposals of His Majesty's Government for setting up a Conference on the model of the Speaker's Conference for the reconstruction of this House, or the reconstitution of the Second Chamber, as it is variously called. I have not the least idea where the matter stands, but I have a very shrewd idea where these proposals are likely to go. If they are suspended in the air—as I fancy they are now—I am afraid that in these boisterous times they will soon be scattered to the four winds of heaven and we may hear very little more of them. On June 21 a debate took place in this House on a Question which I put on the same subject to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. He is unable to be present to-day, and I quite understand the reason. But some time has elapsed since then. His Majesty's Government are quick to take decisions in

237
many things, and a great many important subjects are now decided on the spur of the moment. As your Lordships know, there was once a Bill called the Ten Minutes' Bill. Most of the Bills are now ten minutes' Bills, and most of the proposals are ten minutes' proposals. What I want to know is how it is possible, if the setting up of this Conference is delayed, for any plan to be produced that can be considered here or in the other House of Parliament before the Representation of the People Bill is likely to pass into law. If the consideration of such a Report as the Conference may bring up is delayed until after that Bill is passed into law, it has a very faint chance of ever bearing fruit. I believe that an answer is to be given next week, but I have no assurance whatever that that answer will mean more than further delay. What I urge upon the noble Earl who is in charge of the House now is that the answer given next week should not be in the nature of a soporific. Your Lordships' House stands in no need of soporifics, and I hope that the answer that is then made will show that the Government recognise in these Constitutional matters the grave facts of the situation outside their doors, which in the end we shall all of us have to face. If I cannot get an answer to-day I shall put down a Question next week, if not in the same words, at any rate to the same effect.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My noble friend understands the reason that has kept the Leader of the House away. I will merely say that I will make it clear to Lord Curzon that his answer next week must be of a stimulating character.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this is a Bill which is usually brought in at this period of the session, and the measures affected by it are set down in the Schedule. I do not think that your Lordships will expect me to take up the time of the House by reciting those measures. I beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, confirms a number of Resolutions passed by the local Parliament in the Isle of Man on June 26 last, and there are two changes of duties mentioned in the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2*.
Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

FISHERY HARBOURS (CONTINUANCE OF POWERS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: This Bill, which I ask your Lordships to allow to be read a second time, is necessary in order to revive such powers as have inadvertently been allowed to expire.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

NEW MINISTRIES BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, according to the arrangement which your Lordships will remember was made yesterday afternoon, it is now my duty to ask you to give a Second Reading to the New Ministries Bill. It is a Bill, as your Lordships will see by Clause 1, for the establishment of a Ministry of Reconstruction to promote the work of organisation and development after the close of the war; and Clause 2 says that—
" It shall be the duty of the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise after the termination of the present war."

239
This Bill is one of the results of the state in which we find ourselves. At the termination of the war, after the universal upheaval and dislocation of the previous system, it will be readily understood that many new questions and intricate problems must arise which, perhaps, if not as vital as many questions which have arisen during the war, will at any rate be almost as vital, and will be of the greatest possible importance in every direction of our national life. In every phase of thought—political, social, economic, industrial, and administrative—questions of the greatest complexity will arise. I therefore submit with great respect that it is our duty to begin betimes to prepare for peace.
The late Government, recognising this, set up a Reconstruction Committee, from which sprang a number of sub-committees and consultative bodies. Considerable progress was made, and much preliminary work was accomplished by various Departments. Over the extensive ground and the long list of subjects I think your Lordships will forgive me for not entering. New Departments, as your Lordships know, have been added to existing Departments. The latter have widened out and developed into various ramifications, which indeed have become Departments in themselves; and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it is necessary that there should be a coordinating power which shall be able to draw together the various Departments, primarily to collect their views and harmonise and combine the advice of the many, aiding in the solution of these various problems.
As a first step the Reconstruction Committee set up by the late Government was reconstituted. The Prime Minister became its chairman, and the gentleman who is now Secretary of State for India, Mr. Montagu, was the vice-chairman. A great deal of extremely useful work was done, but in the opinion of the Government the power to co-ordinate must be made still more real. There would appear to be two points specially to be aimed at—(1) restoration of normal conditions in commerce and industry, and trade development in the light of experience gained by the war; and (2) restoration of the normal life of persons affected by war conditions, and improvements-in conditions affecting them, which again have largely been suggested by war experience. Both these
240
points or heads not only suggest but demand limitless consideration and endeavour.
As an example, I will enumerate a few of the subjects on which a variety of Committees have worked. The Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy, which was presided over with his usual patience and efficiency by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has, I believe, already issued a very valuable Report. Then there are the subjects of Army demobilisation, of munition factories, with their wealth of machinery, of enemy aliens, of coal conservation, of the employment of women, of forestry, of employers and employed, and so on. I mention these merely to show the extreme range of subjects, and it is obvious, I think, that a number of Departments must be concerned in the solution of each of these questions. To meet this mass of problems, to render effective the work of the various Committees, to make really helpful the experience and knowledge of Departments, to draw together the results of all this labour, and, in short, to bring about effective co-ordination, is the subject of this Bill.
The new Minister will, of course, be responsible to Parliament. His functions will not to any substantial extent be executive. His Department will be mainly advisory. He will not act in opposition to, or in competition with, existing Government Departments. The Minister will appoint Committees or take over existing Committees, and receive their Reports. He will institute on his own initiative experiments in matters connected with his functions. He will frame schemes for after war action, or for action with a view to conditions which will arise after the war, and submit them to the War Cabinet; and he will indicate the Department by which those schemes could best be carried out. He will have conferred upon him certain powers now vested in other Departments of State. His powers will not be exclusive. They will not shut out the action of other Departments. They will be concurrent, and will be exercised in co-operation with the other Departments. In short, it will be his duty to assist the other Departments, to provide them with information and with proposals, and to help them to build a bridge which will safely carry us over from war to peace conditions. It will be, further, the duty of the Minister to make his Department

241
the centre at which information is collected in regard to action taken by Departments or individuals, and he will endeavour thereby to facilitate the work of preparation by ensuring that a given problem is not approached from various aspects by authorities who are unaware of each other's activities. Herein should come the coordination which is the object of this Bill. It should tend to minimise the confusion which may arise, which does occasionally arise, from the statement of conflicting views by different Departments or authorities, and will give real opportunities of harmonising the different views expressed. The threads will be all in the hands of the Minister, who will have access to the War Cabinet. Such a Minister will make it his duty, if necessary, to submit to the Government or the War Cabinet questions of policy which may arise at any stage of the various inquiries being made, and the answer given to such questions will enable inquiries to be conducted with the minimum of wasted effort.
It is proposed that the general principle of demarcation should be that the Minister should accept and be primarily responsible for investigation and schemes in their preliminary stages, during which the lines of procedure and limits of the inquiry are laid down. It is not proposed in general to take over any staff employed by existing Departments for the purposes of investigation or schemes. The reasons for this are, first, that the full concurrence of the existing Departments in the early stages of the inquiry must be secured, and secondly, that when the inquiry is devoted to securing an increase of material and production, such as in the case of oils or minerals, &c., it is undesirable to separate those engaged upon preliminary work from those who will be in charge of the productive stage of the scheme. Then an Annual Report will be issued. It is further proposed to give extended publicity to the progress made in the work of reconstruction wherever that is consistent with the public interest, and it is intended to devote special attention to the collection of statistics bearing on trade, industrial, and domestic questions, and to invite the representatives of trading and industrial interests to participate fully in the deliberations of the Ministry and in the proposed schemes.
Your Lordships will sec that Clause 7 of the Bill has to do with the right of certain Ministers to sit in Parliament. It provides
242
that what we know as a Minister without Portfolio may sit without re-election. The two Ministers in question are well known to your Lordships. Both are without portfolios, and it is proposed that they should receive salaries. Questions have been raised as to whether they should vacate their seats. It is an important point, and I submit that it is desirable to settle the matter. Therefore Clause 7 of this Bill provides that these Ministers shall not, by reason of their appointment, be deemed to have been or to be incapable of being elected to or of voting in the House of Commons. The provision is carefully limited to the Ministers appointed before the passing of the Bill, so that it can affect only the two Ministers concerned. I have stated to your Lordships briefly the duties of the new Ministry; and in submitting the Bill for Second Reading, I suggest that it will be a prominent part of the machinery by which effective efforts may be made to reduce difficulties and to aid us generally in remodelling the country when the happy days of peace shall come. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2*.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that the House is much obliged to my noble friend opposite for the very lucid way in which he described the provisions of this Bill, but he will forgive me for saying that, although he clearly described its provisions, he did not say a very great deal in defence of the principles which are involved in it. I think I shall not be exaggerating when I say that the announcement of this Bill came as rather a shock to the public. Everybody said, "What! Another new Ministry! Another crowd of officials! Another gigantic building! Surely there must be a limit to these things! "And people said that, notwithstanding the enormous wealth of this country and notwithstanding the lavish way in which it is necessary for us to spend money at this crisis, there must be some limit; for this multiplication of officials and of agencies for spending money must bring us ultimately into the Bankruptcy Court if we do not take care. That was the general view with which this proposal was received.
I do not want your Lordships to think for a moment that I underrate the importance of reconstruction. Reconstruction is a real necessity, which will arise immediately

243
after the conclusion of the war—a necessity on a very large scale, involving vast interests. The question before your Lordships to-day is not whether reconstruction is important, but whether you require a Minister of Reconstruction in order to preside over that process. It is quite true that the problem is a new one in degree, but reconstruction of a kind is a very old matter with which Governments have had to deal. It is part of what they always have to do, part of the policy of the Government; and in normal times the Minister who, in the words of my noble friend opposite, co-ordinates the policy of the Government and sees that the various Ministers do their work and do not tread upon each other's toes, is the Prime Minister. It is one of the functions of the Prime Minister; indeed, it is his particular function. Beyond his great position of responsibility to the Crown and to the country, you may say that the function of the Prime Minister is to co-ordinate the activities of his colleagues. At the present moment the burdens thrown upon the Prime Minister are so overwhelmingly heavy that it is not surprising that he should want to devolve part of his functions upon somebody else. That has been carried to a very wide extent in the character of the present Government. The War Cabinet is itself really an extension of the Prime Minister. It is putting, as it were, the office of Prime Minister into commission.
And the proposal now before your Lordships is only a further extension—namely, to take the function of co-ordinating the other Ministers off the shoulders of the Prime Minister and to put it upon another Minister. I think that is a sufficient theoretic defence for the Second Reading of the Bill; and, for my part, I am not standing at this Table to oppose the Second Reading. But I think that we must approach the creation of this new Ministry with great caution. We do not want a great Department. We do not want a host of clerks. We want nothing of the kind. Let us keep in mind that this is, as I have said, a function of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has no Department; he has not a great body of clerks, though, of course, he has access to all the Departments when he requires it. If I may be allowed to say so with great respect to the gentleman who is to be, as I understand, the new Minister, the Minister of Reconstruction is going to be a glorified Under-Secretary of the Prime Minister.
244
He does not require a Department either. If there is a fresh great Department created all you will have will be a great system of overlapping, with the consequent friction and waste of time. I have had a little experience of this matter, because I had the honour, at the request of the Government, of accepting the position of a member of the Reconstruction Committee which has existed up to now, and I know from that experience the immense danger of overlapping which this business of reconstruction involves. It is impossible to take the functions of the various Ministers out of their hands. You may have a Committee, if you like, upon housing, for example. The Reconstruction Minister will have to look into housing, but he is not going to take housing out of the hands of the Local Government Board. If he does the only result will be that there will be friction, opposition, difficulty at every turn, waste of money, waste of effort, and general loss of temper.
The first conclusion which I would like to draw is that though we may have a new Minister of Reconstruction we do not want a new Department; and I should like—I do not say to-night, for I know the difficulties under which the debate has to be conducted this evening owing to the absence of a number of Ministers—but before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House, I should like a pledge from the Government, if they will give it to us, that there shall be no Department created. There will have to be a personal staff, of course, attached to the Minister of Reconstruction. Secretaries he necessarily must have. But anything in the nature of a large Department ought to be avoided.
The next point upon which I should like to make an observation is this. The noble Viscount who has just sat down told us of the enormous scope of the reconstruction problems which lie before us. He was perfectly right. They are very wide indeed. But do not make them wider than is necessary. There is a tremendous tendency to expand them quite unnecessarily. They are wide enough now, in all conscience. All the questions of demobilisation—demobilisation of the Army, demobilisation of the munition workers, demobilisation of all the stores and equipment which have been collected for carrying on the war—those are enormous subjects. Then there is housing. The whole process of new housing during the period of the

245
war has been arrested. As your Lordships know, a certain deficiency of housing arises every year. Nothing has been done to I meet that. All those arrears have to be made up. When the troops come back from the Front there will be a tremendous difficulty in regard to housing the men and their families. That has to be met, and it is a vast problem. Then there is the fiscal policy of this country. That will have to be settled. Then there is the military policy of this country. Something probably will have to be done with regard to that. Lastly, and much more important than all the others, there is the labour policy of this country. There are the immense difficulties which confront us in the matter of labour at this moment. I need not dwell upon them. All your Lordships know their extent, I may even say their gravity. An atmosphere of suspicion exists in the labour world, of profound suspicion, suspicion that they are not going to be fairly treated, suspicion that they are going to be got the better of. All of these, I believe and hope, are utterly unfounded; none the less they exist, and it is a problem of the greatest importance and of the widest extent to eradicate that feeling from their minds. That, in all conscience, is an enormous mass of material on which reconstruction has to work—not by the Reconstruction Minister alone, but by the great Departments of the State. Then do not let us add to it.
The late Government, if the members of it who are present will allow me so far to criticise them, failed to satisfy public opinion because they would not settle anything. The present Government bid fair to come to shipwreck because they try to settle too much. With a programme such as I have ventured to sketch to your Lordships, is it not insanity to raise other vast problems as well? Why should we revolutionise the electoral system of this country? Why should we revolutionise your Lordships' House? Why should we have a new education system? Why should we try entirely to alter the laws relating to licensing and drink? None of these matters arise immediately out of the war. They have nothing to do with the war. I am not pronouncing, of course, any opinion upon them. I agree that there is a case for the reform of our electoral system, not so wide as the Government think but still certainly a case of some kind. There is a crying necessity for the reform of your Lordships' House. Possibly something ought to be
246
done in regard to the drink traffic. I am inclined to think that there are changes which ought to be carried out in the matter of education. But for goodness sake let us wait until we have time to consider them. There is an old proverb which says, "Never swap horses while crossing a stream." The Government are trying, not merely to change horses, but to build entirely from the very beginning the carriage they are driving. There never was a more reckless policy in the world than to start on these vast changes in the middle of a great war. I should have thought that the extreme example of Russia would have convinced everybody that you cannot do two things at the same time. You cannot have a social revolution and a great war, at any rate not successfully, at the same moment.
So that the next condition which I suggest to the Government should be imposed upon the new Minister of Reconstruction is that he should exercise self-restraint, that he should be moderate, and that he should not attempt to go into vast after-war problems which do not arise immediately out of the war. The formidable list which I gave your Lordships a minute ago of matters which will arise immediately out of the war cannot be avoided. These other matters have nothing to do with it, and ought to be postponed until the war is over and until public men in all parts of the country have time to attend to them. I urge the Government to consider the points which I have laid before them. I do not know whether it will be possible—we will consider between now and the Committee stage—to represent in the form of Amendments any of the points which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships' House. If such a course is proposed, I might venture to put them down upon the Paper. But in any case, whether it is done in that or in another form, the broad fact remains that unless these limitations are pursued, unless there is self-restraint in the scope of the activities of the Minister, and unless he is prevented from having a vast Office and a vast Department, the Bill, instead of being useful, will be nothing but a curse.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to express full agreement with a great deal that fell from my noble friend who has just sat down, although not with the whole of what he said, especially in the latter part of his speech, in which I thought

247
in some respects he overstated his case. Some of the subjects which he indicated among those which might have been left alone until our return to normal conditions cannot, I think, be so treated in the interests of our national life. In particular I would mention the subject of education, which my noble friend seemed to think might be set aside for the time being until we were able to resume our more ordinary existence. There I completely differ from my noble friend. I think that of all the problems of reconstruction, that of education in all its branches, especially technical and industrial education, is perhaps the most important of any. The terrible drain that has been made upon the young men of the nation by the war makes it imperative that, if we are to hold our own among the countries of the world, all those who are just coming to maturity, both boys and girls, should obtain a new conception of what is necessary for them if they are to take their proper part in the national life, and that can only be brought about by large, and also—I fear it cannot be denied—most costly changes in our system of education, particularly in its higher branches. So far, therefore, I am not in complete agreement with my noble friend.
But with the whole spirit of the earlier part of his observations, which, if he will allow me to say so, he expressed, as I thought, with singular force and also with great moderation, I most entirely concur. My noble friend opposite, the Lord Chamberlain, who, as has been said, stated his case most fairly and clearly, has certainly not brought to my mind—I do not know how it may be with the rest of your Lordships' House—any kind of conviction of the necessity for the appointment for this purpose of a Minister with a Department. I can quite understand—of course, we all should—the creation of a Committee to inquire into reconstruction, and the necessity of making that Committee as strong as possible, with as competent and influential a chairman as could be obtained. There is no doubt a great deal to be done in preparing the work of reconstruction of the different departments. But I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess behind me said, that the moment you create a special Department for this purpose you positively invite friction between each of the heads of the other Departments with whom the new Minister has to deal. He might be, of course, a Minister of such overwhelming experience and authority
248
that he would be almost a double of the Prime Minister, and therefore able to exercise the powers which, as the noble Marquess most truly said, belong to the Prime Minister and to him alone. Now it is no disparagement to my right hon. friend who is designated for this appointment, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing as colleague and for whose capacity I have the highest admiration, to say that he at any rate is not in that position. It would not be easy to name more than one or two in the ranks of the whole Government, including the Cabinet, who could be said to hold such a position as that. Therefore it is not to depreciate my right hon. friend to say that he does not. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that to fit out the right hon. gentleman with a large apparatus of clerks and typewriters and the whole paraphernalia of a gigantic modern Department, occupying probably some colossal hotel or other public building, would be a great error.
Why it was necessary to transform the Reconstruction Committee into a Ministry I confess I in no way understand; but perhaps some noble Lord, either now or on a future occasion when my noble friend raises the matter again, will be able to give the fuller explanation for which he asked of the principle on which this proposal is made. As Lord Salisbury so truly said, the public have become dubious about the creation of this great number of new Departments. To each of those Departments a special departmental function has, whether their creation was necessary or not, been assigned. But to this new Minister no such special departmental work is, by the nature of the case, assigned. He is, as Lord Salisbury pointed out, simply to be a shadow of the Prime Minister, executing functions which for the moment the Prime Minister cannot, as we should all agree, possibly undertake. For that reason I cannot help regretting that it has been thought necessary to add to the number for this particular purpose.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I rise to say a few words with regard to the observations which have been made upon the Bill by the noble Marquesses who have just addressed the House. I listened with great satisfaction to what Lord Salisbury said when he told your Lordships that he thought a case was made out for the Second Reading of this Bill, and one appreciates

249
that all the more from the fact that in the first sentences of his speech he expressed a feeling which is common in the country against the creation of a new Office. The expression of that feeling renders all the more valuable the statement which the noble Marquess made to the House that on his examination of the Bill he agreed that such a measure as this was necessary, and he was prepared to support the Second Reading. I hope that, whatever prima facie expression may be made against new Offices, all those who examine this question will come to the same conclusion as the noble Marquess has done.
There is no doubt that there will be a vast amount of inter-departmental work in connection with the problems of reconstruction. A great number of Departments will be concerned with a great many questions that will come up for settlement when the day of peace arrives; and it is highly necessary, in order to prevent overlapping, that you should have some Minister to co-ordinate, to organise, and to prevent waste of effort and possible conflict between different Departments. Lord Salisbury said that he would object to the creation of a great Department, but a Department I think he felt there must be. The Minister must have some assistance. There must be a Department, and I hope that the noble Marquess who spoke second will, on reflection, not grudge the new Minister the modest assistance of a typewriter. You must have a properly equipped Department, not one occupying a palatial hotel, and not more officials than are wanted for the work; but to my mind it would be the worst possible economy to grudge the little expense that is necessary to give the new Minister the proper assistance he requires for the efficient carrying out of his work.
I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the co-ordinating power in every Ministry must be the Prime Minister. That is true. But the problems which will present themselves when the time of peace comes are so vast and complicated that the Prime Minister will certainly want help in disentangling the issues and in having the facts cleared up and presented in such a shape as to enable him to exercise that co-ordinative influence and that control which belong to him by right of his office. I cannot at all agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, as to its being much better to have a Committee than a Ministry.
250
You can have work of this kind much more effectively done by selecting one man, not giving him too large a staff but a proper staff, and by putting upon him the responsibility of preventing overlapping between different Departments, and thereby rendering to the Prime Minister that help which he is entitled to expect in the discharge of duties so onerous as those which will devolve upon him at the termination of the war. It was said that Governments have had to face questions of this kind before. Yes. But there never was in the history of the world such a war as this through which we are now passing, and according to all the omens the questions which will crowd upon the attention of the Government when peace is declared will be more serious than any that have ever presented themselves for solution on similar occasions in our past history.
I do not deny that we have passed through great crises, but I do not think that anybody would say for a moment that the questions which presented themselves, even at the termination of the Napoleonic Wars, were on the same scale as those which we shall have to solve when peace is declared after this struggle is over. Do let us be ready in time. Do not let us have the unedifying spectacle of hurrying up at the last moment endeavouring to deal with problems which ought to have been considered long before. It has been said, I think, in another place, Why not win the war first and talk about reconstruction afterwards? I agree that the one duty of the moment is the winning of the war and thoroughly defeating the enemy. But we know perfectly well what problems will arise when that most desirable end has been achieved, and to my mind it would be the height of unwisdom not to take the opportunity of considering at present what should be done.
I am not going in any detail through the list of objects to which attention was called by the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Of course, there is the great question of our commercial relations, upon which we have had from one of the Committees referred to a most interesting and valuable Report. There is the great question relating to the demobilisation of our Forces and enabling those who have fought for us to resume their positions in civil life advantageously to themselves and to the country, which will badly need their labour. There is the most

251
important question—in reference to which I believe one sub-committee has been nominated—of getting more easily Parliamentary powers for public works which will undoubtedly be wanted in many parts of the country. There is the great question of coal conservation—how coal may best be used, how we can improve the methods of getting it, and where it is possible that new mines may be opened. There is the great question, with many ramifications, of alien enemies. What are you to do in the way of repatriating those who are within our gates, a great many of whom at present are interned? What are you to do in the future with regard to the admission of aliens, and is our law of naturalisation to remain in the state in which it is at present, by which a man can become a citizen of this country without renouncing at once and for ever his allegiance to another and possible hostile country? There is the question of forestry, the question of the relations between employer and employed, and the other matters which have been referred to, of which I will mention only one—namely, the great problem that will arise with regard to shipping. There you have a crop of questions affecting a great many Departments which eminently require co-ordination so as to prevent overlapping and waste of effort.
I am not going to say anything about the Bill itself, which has been so clearly explained by my noble friend who introduced it. With regard to the Office, this Office will be what the man who holds it makes it. It is a very great opportunity for effort in the interests of this country on the restoration of peace, which is almost as great an occasion, almost as difficult an occasion, as the beginning of the war. The Minister will not be an executive officer; this will not be an executive post; it will be an advisory and co-ordinating post. He will not oust the present Departments at all. He will prevent overlapping; he will prevent friction; and I think that we may in this matter take a lesson from our enemies, because Germany is already preparing for peace. Let us be wise in time, and do not let us be outstripped by Germany in preparing for the battle of peace which lies ahead of us when the sterner battle through which we are passing is over.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for
252
the explanations he has just given, because looking at the Bill, I found it so vague and indefinite that I could not conceive what functions this new Ministry was going to perform. We have now heard from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack of a list of duties that will be imposed upon this Department, and I rise simply to make the suggestion that these might be set out in a Schedule, so that we might not omit any powers which perhaps the Minister at the head of such a Department ought to carry out. I am not one of those who have followed very closely what has been done with regard to reconstruction. In fact, I have hardly understood what it has meant. But now that the noble and learned Lord has told us what the duties of the new Ministry will be, if they are set out in a Schedule at the end of the Bill it might occur to the minds of noble Lords that there are other duties that ought to be performed besides those named.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am in the unfortunate position that, so far from being reassured by the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I admit that I have been greatly alarmed. Is it true that this new Department is to take under its control the consideration of every political question that is now upon the horizon of our political outlook? Is it to consider questions of afforestation in the future, the conservation of our coal supply, and a myriad other questions that have no direct or intimate relation with the war at all? Is it to be, in other words, not in truth a Reconstruction Department for the purpose of piecing together the broken and shattered fabric of our national life, but to be a kind of Exploratory Department which is to investigate the whole area of political controversy and recommend to the Prime Minister the measures that are to be undertaken? If that really be in the contemplation of the Government, then I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that it would be wise to define the powers of this Ministry in a Schedule, and we may be able in Committee to see how much should be included in the ambit of his authority and how much might profitably be left outside. Surely nothing can be worse than that you should take a Ministry, formed, no doubt, expressly and primarily for the purpose I have mentioned, and then overload it with a number of questions

253
with which such a Ministry has no direct concern.
I admit that I am entirely unconvinced that there is any need of a Ministry at all. Nor can I find, from what the noble and learned Lord said, that there is any special reason why it is now required to perform through the intervention of a Minister what has been hitherto done, and what I believe all people would admit has been extremely effectually done, by a number of Committees. After all, what this new Minister is going to do is this. He is going to take a number of entirely undefined portions of the work of other existing Government Departments. What they are to be, nobody can tell. What he is to do, I think, is not quite certain. Apparently he is to advise the Prime Minister what each of these Departments ought to do in the special direction which he selects. I cannot see why a Ministry is required for that purpose. I may be a little prejudiced in this matter, because I must admit that I have a profound dislike of every form of officialism. I admit my view in that direction, but at any rate there is some justification for the view that I hold.
Although the industrial unrest in this country has, for reasons for which I suppose the Government are responsible, been excluded from consideration and discussion in the Press, everybody knows that it exists, and the Reports of the Commissions that were appointed to inquire into it have in many cases attributed it to the interference of officialdom with the industrial life of this country; and although unrest is at all times a matter to be regretted, I must state that I am pleased to think that the cause of the unrest lies no deeper than in the independent resentment of British workmen against the interference of officials with their daily life. I sincerely hope, for the future of this country, that this feeling will continue. I shall certainly not do anything in the nature of active opposition to this Bill, but I am not convinced that it is necessary, and I regret greatly that this Government have thought it wise to multiply the Departments which already exist in such large numbers, instead of availing themselves, as they very well might have done, of the existing organisations of other Departments and other Offices for the purpose of carrying on work which everybody admits, to the extent of reconstruction, is of vital importance in the circumstances.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, I do not for a moment suggest that this Bill ought to be rejected, and I should not have troubled you with any remarks had it not been for the provocative speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He spoke in defence of a Bill the very title of which required a defence very different from what he made. It is called the New Ministries Bill. I believe that the gorge of this country is rising against the creation of these new Ministries. When Labour speaks regarding it—and there is hardly an exception to the rule—it alludes to the fat berths that are being found for those who serve the Government in one capacity or another. I therefore think that the principle of this Bill required a defence very different from that which the noble and learned Lord was pleased to make.
Your Lordships will recollect that in a famous speech made by Burke at Bristol he declaimed against the Household troops entering Parliament in their battalions to support the Government of the day, and he suggested that the White Wand of the Lord Treasurer ought to be used to keep back the applicants for office and to keep them in their proper places. There is no country in Europe where there is anything like the number of political offices we now have here. A Frenchman of authority observed to me the other day that it would be a great convenience to the Government of France if they were able to distribute posts of emolument as they are being bandied about in Great Britain and Ireland. I do not suggest for a moment that there is any corrupt motive, nor any corrupt result, but I do say that it is open to objection that there should be ninety Ministers sitting in both Houses and in receipt of Government salaries, and therefore, being necessarily attached to the Government, incapable of taking independent action on any public question that may be submitted to either House. It cannot be said to be a healthy thing in the growth and development of our Constitution.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I think, rather underrated the public spirit of this country. It is not true that the spirit of voluntary service is dead. On the contrary, I believe there is more readiness to give voluntary service at the present time than there ever was, and the facts of the case in regard to reconstruction bear me out. The noble and learned Lord

255
went through the various functions assigned to the new Minister. There is hardly one of those which is not being covered at this moment by a Committee serving from voluntary motives, and on which each member gives much time and thought to the consideration of the various subjects upon which this new Minister has now to draw up schemes. The noble and learned Lord spoke of the demobilisation of the Army. In every district demobilisation committees are in course of formation, not one of which will be paid. Yet they are effecting exactly the same object for which the new Minister is to receive his salary.
I take another subject—the colonisation of the land at home and abroad within the Empire by the soldiers who will be discharged. That is already covered by a Committee on which I have had the honour of serving, and which is just presenting its Export to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In fact, there is not one in the whole category of the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack which is not now being covered by voluntary labour. I think the great glory of this country has been the voluntary service of its citizens. I confess that it is hateful to me to see these things all made the matter of pay and office. I should much have preferred to allow these Committees to present their Reports to Parliament, and then for Parliament itself to judge of their effectiveness. The word "co-ordination" is brought in, and is being used to cover every sort of waste and redundancy in the service of the State as I have had occasion to find out in connection with another blessed word, the word "propaganda."
Whilst wishing to raise no factious opposition to this Bill, I hope it will be the last of the kind we shall see. The "New Ministries Bill" has a very silly sound. I trust myself that in the answer he may make the Leader of the House will be able to tell us that we are not going to dispense with voluntary service in every direction. If it be necessary to create this Office, which has been hedged round in a curious way—I think with regard to further Under Secretaries a pledge was given in another place—I hope, as I have said, that it will be the last of its kind. We want no more placemen in either House. It is a mistake to think that they will come to an end with the ending of the war. I am afraid that, without any wish on their part perhaps,
256
their functions will be continued, and I say that it is a danger in these days to our Parliamentary system, which is being threatened on many sides, that there should be such a large number of Members pledged at all costs to support the Government of the day. That is the meaning of other bodies outside clamouring to exercise functions which Parliament alone ought to discharge. It is the feeling that in Parliament you do not get the independent expression of opinion and conscience which you had, and I can think of nothing less calculated to secure a reversion to the old order of things than the Bill which is now under the consideration of your Lordships' House.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I certainly did not come into the House with the idea of taking any part in this debate, and I am almost disqualified from doing so by the fact that I have heard only the last ten minutes or quarter of an hour of the discussion. But the two speeches to which I have listened—namely, that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and of the noble Lord who has just spoken—appear so directly to impugn the conduct, policy, and intentions of the Government that I feel it almost my duty to say a word in reply. It appeared to me from the speech to which we have just listened that what the noble Lord objected to was not so much the constitution of this Ministry for the particular purpose which it is intended to subserve, nor the appointment of Dr. Addison—there was clearly no reflection against that gentleman in the remarks of the noble Lord—but the multiplication of Ministries. The noble Lord used the word "placemen." He seems to think that this Ministry has been created in order to provide an increase of posts and salaries for certain people, and he said that in this multiplication of public offices you have a danger to the independence of the House of Commons, if not to the independence of the State. Surely, the noble Lord does not imagine that it is with any particular pleasure that this Government, or any Government, undertakes the multiplication of Ministries or the increase of posts and salaries. They know the kind of objection which they are certain to meet with in both Houses of Parliament.
Really what the Government are looking to—and I must bring the House back to the point—is the manner in which the work can best be done. The noble Lord said,

257
" You are getting all this work excellently discharged by Committees of admirable volunteers. Why not rest content with that?" I do not know whether the noble Lord has had as much experience of these Committees working on the war as my duties have led me to have myself. I know the difficulties of getting the members to meet. I know that owing to the enormous press of business they cannot meet regularly. I know that business has frequently to be postponed. And without disputing for a moment the personal assiduity of those who sit on these Committees, this work of reconstruction could not be done if it were left to volunteer Committees alone. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack conclusively showed your Lordships how wide is the range of operations to be covered. The noble Lord who has just resumed his seat alluded to the coming back of the soldiers from the different theatres of war, several millions of men. I wonder if he has any idea of the length of time demobilisation alone will take. I wonder if he seriously thinks that the work of putting these men back into their old employment or finding new employment for them, the work of creating new relations between Capital and Labour, of constructing new industries, and of reconstituting the relations that existed between Capital and Labour in industries already existing, can be undertaken by volunteer Committees? That work is the responsibility of the Government, and it must be undertaken by somebody responsible to the Government.
Let me put the case in another way. These problems will relate to a great many different Departments of the State. Now what is my experience of the Departments of State, and even of the different Ministries under this Administration? It is this—that, conscientiously as they do their work, they are habitually, daily, coming into collision with each other, disagreeing with each other. What is the good of having half-a-dozen volunteer Committees or a dozen Departments disagreeing unless you have somebody to hold the scales equally between them and to advise the Cabinet which line to take? Half the business of the members of the War Cabinet at the moment is devoted to that blessed word, of which the noble Lord disapproves, "co-ordination"—co-ordinating the relations between the Departments and composing disagreements where they arise. That is the object of the creation of this
258
Ministry. It is when different plans are proposed by this or by that Department that the new Minister should be able to advise upon them and suggest to the Government what line it should take. In reply to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said, I really do not think that there is the slightest intention—it certainly never entered my head—that this Minister should explore the whole field of political and social activity and devise a new policy for the Government or for the nation.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack distinctly suggested the things I mentioned.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Quite so; and the problems which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack mentioned are problems directly arising out of the termination of the war and the commencement of peace. That I understand to be the limitation which will be placed upon the new Ministry.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Afforestation!
LORD BUCKMASTER: Conservation of coal!
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: As a matter of fact, I did not hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, so I had better not refer to it further. I will only say this in conclusion. We are still waging the greatest war in which this country has ever been involved. That war will have been ill-waged, whatever its result in the field of action, if it is not succeeded by a peace as great, as lasting, as beneficent as any that has previously occurred in the history of the world. It is to the construction of that peace that our efforts ought to be just as much directed as to the successful prosecution of the war; and, looking at it from that point of view, I am sure that your Lordships will give your general agreement to a Bill appointing a Ministry and a Minister who will assist us in that object.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE) (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord Privy Seal (L. Wigan (E. Crawford))). (No. 95.)
NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c. (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
PARKER'S DIVORCE BILL, [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copies of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House, may I suggest that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships that the debate which will commence at the, ordinary hour to-morrow—on the Second Reading of the Corn Production Bill—should be continued at half-past three on Friday afternoon, in order to enable those of your Lordships who wish to take part in the debate to have an opportunity of doing so.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask when it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Bill which has just been read a second time?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not know how the business with regard to the Corn Production Bill will progress. Therefore I must consult my noble friends on this Bench about the question put to me by the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble Viscount or the Leader of the House will give us ample notice when the Committee stage of the New Ministries Bill will be taken, because we have to consider what Amendments we shall put down.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is considered important that the Bill should leave this House at as early a date as possible; but perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to make a statement to-morrow afternoon as to the date of the Committee stage.
House adjourned at five minutes-past seven o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past four o'clock.