Sitting of 17 August 1917

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Billeting of Civilians Act, 1917—Billeting of Civilians (Appeal) Rules, 1917, dated 13th August, 1917, made by the Central Billeting Board subject to the approval of the Ministry of Munitions in pursuance of Section 2, Subsection (3), and of Section 4, Subsection (2) of the Act:
National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906—Tenth Report to the Secretary for Scotland by the Board of Trustees for the National Gallery of Scotland for the year from 1st April, 1916, to 31st March, 1917:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889—Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University of Glasgow under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, for the year 1915–1916: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the sittings of the House before the recess. This is a step which is usually taken at this period of the session in order to enable the remaining stages of Bills to be got through before the House rises.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

GLASGOW BOUNDARIES ACT, 1912 (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

AFTER-WAR SEA COMMUNICATION.
LORD D'ABERNON LORD D'ABERNON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what measure they have taken or contemplate for the provision of safe, economical, and rapid sea communication with the Empire after the war; whether the enlargement or reconstruction
618
of harbours along the great ocean routes has been or will be considered in this connection; and if so, by what Department.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the Question which stands in my name is to ascertain the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the subject of sea communication within the Empire after the war, particularly in relation to the enlargement and improvement of harbours along the great ocean trade routes and the provision of adequate dry-dock accommodation. In the course of the inquiry made throughout the Empire by the Dominions Royal Commission two conclusions stood out as being of vital importance to the development of the future trade of the Empire. First, that safety, economy, and speed in sea communication deserved far greater consideration and more scientific forethought from the Governments of the various States of the Empire than they had hitherto received; and, secondly, that it is impossible to create or organise efficient ocean transport unless, as a preliminary, the harbours of the Empire have been developed under a co-ordinated and scientific plan.
In last analysis, it is the size and particularly the depth of harbour accommodation which determine the dimensions of the vessels which can use a given route, and both the speed and economy of transport depend upon them. If any one harbour on a given ocean route is inadequate to receive vessels of deep draught, this fact involves a reduction in the maximum size of vessels using the route, or prevents them being loaded to their full capacity. A reduction in size carries with it a reduction of speed, increased cost of carriage, and diminished safety. It cannot be made too clear that size and deep draught are essential both to speed and to economy. It is important that this should be clearly recognised at a time when small vessels are advocated on the principle of splitting risks. As I say, size and deep draught are essential, and I think that all maritime authorities recognise the importance during war of having large vessels with a great steaming radius carrying coal sufficient to carry them large distances to the next coaling station.
I would urge the noble Lords who take an interest in the technical side of this question, which is very complicated, to devote their attention to the Report of the Dominions Royal Commission on this subject, and to the special Memorandum

619
of Sir H. Biles, who is, I think, one of the highest authorities on the design of shipping. There are two reasons why it is urgent to bring this matter to your Lordships notice. Firstly, because under the stress and pressure of war necessity a large number of standard vessels are being pressed forward towards completion in order to meet the immediate exigencies of the submarine situation. These ships, although probably the best that cm be constructed in the present circumstances, will certainly prove inadequate to the requirements of the great ocean routes after the war. The public are apt to expect too much from mere standardisation. The word has a reassuring sound, but its real merit depends entirely upon what you standardise. Considered by itself, standardisation is rather a retarding than accelerating force; so that more standardisation is not sufficient to produce progress on scientific lines. I have full confidence in the practical commercial ability of the Shipping Controller, but it is impossible for him or for anyone else to devise really suitable ships for the future traffic of the Empire unless the harbour conditions of the Empire have been previously determined. Designing ships in ignorance of the future harbour conditions is akin to specifying rolling stock for a line without knowing what the height of the tunnels and bridges is to be. You may hit off the best type of vehicle, but it is immeasurably improbable.
The second reason why I have brought the question forward is the increasing importance which attaches to high speed in commercial vessels owing to the submarine menace. The comparative immunity of fast vessels is, I believe, one of the most remarkable features of recent experience, and it is clear that if convoying is adopted speed will play even a greater part than now. High speed postulates and compulsorily involves larger vessels, and large vessels are obviously impracticable without large and deep harbours. On this count, therefore, we are again brought to the conclusion that no wise decision is possible on ship design until harbour conditions have been determined.
I do not propose on the present occasion to go into details regarding the harbours either of this country or of the Dominions or Colonies. It will suffice to say that a comparatively small expenditure now on scientific lines would repay itself many fold in the interests of the Empire by increasing the safety, the economy, and the
620
speed of Imperial communications. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one instance. On the great route from the United Kingdom to New Zealand and Australia, via the Cape, a route which has been increasingly used since the war, a maximum expenditure of £5,000,000 would fundamentally alter the capabilities of that route, so that the cost of transport could be largely reduced and the speed of vessels considerably increased, increased speed carrying with it increased immunity from attack. The total cost would only equal that of a few hundred miles of railway, and be less than the cost of one day of war. Of this maximum expenditure of £5,000,000 I think about £3,000,000 would have to be spent on the harbour at Capetown, and a very small portion of the balance would bring the other harbours along the route to accommodate vessels of 38 feet draught.
On another route—from Australia and New Zealand to the United Kingdom via the Panama Canal—an expenditure of less than £250,000 would make this route much more practicable than it is to-day for large and fast vessels, so that liners using the Cape route to Australia could complete their voyage round the world calling at Jamaica and Halifax. It would on these lines be easy to create a new Imperial mail service round the world, connecting the United Kingdom with South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, and Canada. Owing to the foresight of those responsible for the Panama Canal, that waterway has been already brought up to the required standard. Noble Lords know that the Panama Canal was designed on much more far-seeing lines than any previous work of a similar character, and it is probable that the original design will not have to be enlarged, as is necessary in the case of the Suez Canal.
I venture to think that when you can get a great mail route for the Empire far superior to anything now in existence and likely to lead to the construction of vessels far more useful during wartime than any now sailing, the matter should be examined into closely, and, if feasible, the work should be put in hand at once. Every day of delay means loss of money and of efficiency. I hope that His Majesty's Government will take steps to have the problem considered promptly, and that consideration may lead to rapid and effective action on broad and far-seeing lines.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, nobody can fail to realise the capital importance of the Question to which the attention of your Lordships has been called by the noble Lord who has just addressed you. The improvement of sea communications throughout the Empire, and the provision of suitable harbours along those routes—either by the construction of new harbours or by the enlargement of existing one—is clearly an Imperial necessity. It is so now; it has been so for long; and, for the reasons which were mentioned by the noble Lord in his short but apposite speech, it will be even more so when the war comes to an end.
The noble Lord alluded with great modesty to the labours of the Royal Commission over which he himself presided, and which, in the years immediately preceding the war, visited almost every part of the Empire in discharge of the duty which had been laid upon them. I do not know whether the Report of that Royal Commission has received more attention at the hands of your Lordships than commonly awaits similar Reports from Commissions not less useful; but I can say, having made some study of the document itself, that it seems to me to be one of the most important contributions to Imperial solidarity in the future that has emanated from any source during the last decade. The noble Lord alluded more particularly to the Memorandum by Sir John Biles, the well-known naval constructor. But I might call the attention of your Lordships to the chapter in the Report which deals with this subject specially—chapter 9—where, in twenty or thirty pages of print, the whole case made by the noble Lord is clearly stated. There you see demonstrated to what extent the life of the Empire depends on its sea communications, and it is clearly shown how the development of these routes and the cheapening of transport upon them will have a double effect. First, it will give a great impetus to Imperial trade; secondly, it will add to the strength and cohesion of the Empire as a whole by strengthening the links and accelerating the rapidity of communication between its different parts.
Nobody knows better than the noble Lord that, valuable as were the labours of his Commission, this is not the first time that the matter has been considered
622
by Governments in this country. Resolutions upon the subject were passed at the Imperial Conferences that were held in London in 1907 and 1911; and, looking through the Report of the Imperial War Conference which was held the other day in London and at which the Prime Ministers or other representatives of our leading Dominions assisted, I find that a resolution was there carried, on the motion of Sir Robert Borden, the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, advocating concerted action in the provision of an adequate food supply and arrangments for its transport when and where required. A little later in the Report of that Conference—which has been laid as a Parliamentary Paper—you will find notice of a resolution in the name of Sir Joseph Ward (which was not discussed and passed only because there was no time to include it in the proceedings, but about which I believe there was absolute unanimity on the part of the members of the Conference) in favour of improved mail services and harbour accommodation in the different parts of the Empire.
Therefore the noble Lord, in presenting his Report to Parliament and in bringing it to our notice this afternoon is, I can assure him preaching only to the converted. At the same time nobody will realise more quickly than he that this is a matter which cannot be dealt with off-hand or all in a moment. There are a good many things going on in connection with the war, and a good deal of labour is placed upon the shoulders of those who belong to His Majesty's Government. Further, this question is not one which can be settled, so to speak, by a stroke of the pen by His Majesty's Government alone. It requires careful consideration with the various Departments of Government that are concerned at home and also with the Dominion Governments in different parts of the world.
In reply to the last part of the Question of the noble Lord, to which he did not allude in making his remarks just now, in its purely British aspect this work will no doubt fall within the purview of the Ministry of Reconstruction which your Lordships are about to set up. In its Imperial aspect it will provide a matter for consideration between the Government here and the various Administrations of the Dominions in all parts of the Empire. The matter will not be lost sight of; and, if we exhibited

623
any inclination to forget it, I am sure that we may trust the noble Lord to bring it again to the recollection of the Government and of this House.

WAR LOAN BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

CORN PRODUCTION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3:
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The Amendments standing in my name to this clause are purely verbal.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 2, leave out, (" Part I ") and insert (" this Part ")
Page 3, line 9, leave out (" Part I ") and insert (" this Part ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4:
Minimum rate for agricultural wages.
4.—(1) Any person who employs a workman in agriculture shall pay wages to the workman at a rate not less than the minimum rate as fixed under this Act and applicable to the case, and if he fails to do so, shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a fine not exceeding one pound for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction therefor.
(2) On the conviction of an employer under this section the court may by the conviction adjudge or order the employer convicted to pay in addition to any fine such sum as appears to the court to be due to the workman employed on account of wages, the wages being calculated at the minimum rate; but the power to order the payment of wages under this provision shall not be in derogation of any right of the workman to recover wages by any other proceedings.
(3) Any agreement for the payment of wages in contravention of this section, or for abstaining to exercise any right of enforcing the payment of wages in accordance with this section shall be void.
(4) The provisions of this section as to payment of wages at a minimum rate shall operate as respects able-bodied men as from the commencement of this Act (although a minimum rate of wages may not have been fixed), but only so as to enable any sum which would have been payable under this section to an able-bodied man on account of wages for time-work if a minimum rate for able-bodied men had been fixed to be recovered by the workman from his employer at any time not exceeding three months after the rate is fixed:
Provided that no sum shall be recoverable under this provision except in a case in which and to the extent to which the wages paid have not, in the opinion of the court, been equivalent to wages for an ordinary day's work at the rate of twenty-five shillings a week.
LORD PARMOOR: I move to insert, after "shall" [" shall be liable "] in subsection (1), the words standing in my name on the Paper. I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he is prepared to accept my Amendment. The other day I suggested the introduction of the word "knowingly," but I was told that this would throw upon the prosecution an almost impossible task. In order to meet any possible objection I have put the words in the other form as appearing in my Amendment. Those words would meet the case of a man who, owing to the difficulties of the Regulations or the conditions, would not know that the rate he was paying was less than the minimum rate. One might take the illustration of a member of your Lordships' House. In that case the sums would be paid by the bailiff, and it would be hard that the noble Lord should be subjected to penalties of this kind if that money were paid without his knowledge. I do not wish to press it if the Lord Chancellor does not think it a proper Amendment, but I hope that he will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, after (" shall ") insert (" then unless he can prove that such wages have been paid without his knowledge that they were at a rate less than the minimum rate ").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): I am at one with the purpose of this Amendment, though I do not like the words which the noble and learned Lord has moved. I suggest to him that he should adopt words similar to those which we find on the same page—namely, "unless he proves that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained." It is not enough that he should not know; he should also show that he could not reasonably have ascertained. If the noble and learned Lord would move to insert at the end of the subsection, after the word "therefor," the following words, they would meet the view I entertain—
" Provided that such person shall not be liable to conviction if he proves that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the wages paid were less than the wages required under this Act to be paid."
LORD PARMOOR: I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor for what he has said, and I agree that the words "could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained "should be inserted. I will withdraw my Amendment, and move in the terms suggested by my noble and learned friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, after the word (" therefor "), insert (" Provided that such person shall not be liable to conviction if he proves that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the wages paid were less than the wages required under this Act to be paid ").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD HARRIS: With a view to clearing up what may be an obscurity, I shall be glad if the noble and learned Lord will tell the House whether this liability applies to all classes of minimum wage, not merely to the fiat rate provided but also as regards special rates of pay. If it does, then unquestionably the addition of these words is very necessary and a great improvement. Let me give an illustration of what I mean, arising out of a letter which I have received this morning from a very large hop grower. It not infrequently happens that a dispute arises between the hop picker and the hop grower, or his bailiff, at the end of a week when the wages are due, and the custom of that particular agricultural business is to fix the rate of wage according to how the picking has been affected by the weather or by any other material condition; and it is quite possible for the occupier or his bailiff to fix a rate of wage there on the spot without the farmer as a matter of fact having an opportunity of knowing what rate had been fixed. I dare say that in other agricultural cultivation the same condition arises. Therefore I add my prayer to the House that they should pass this addition to the clause. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us whether this liability applies to all classes of minimum wage as well as to the flat rate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it does so apply.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I move the insertion, at the end of subsection (1), of a new proviso of which I have given the Lord Chancellor notice. I should like to
626
go a step further than my noble and learned friend (Lord Parmoor), and give to the unfortunate employer a chance before he is had up in Court. I have ventured to draft a proviso which gives the employer who unwittingly, owing to the complicated nature of this wages question, does not pay the right rate of wages, a chance of mending his ways before he is criminally proceeded against with all the stigma which attaches to such a prosecution. Until one knows more than one knows now about the various categories of labour in which a man may be employed, there are no means in the Bill of ascertaining what the wage is except by what is a criminal prosecution, I venture to think that the employer, at present at all events, should have the opportunity before he is taken into Court of knowing that the charge is going to be made against him, and that he should have an opportunity also of dealing with the matter which is the subject of complaint.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, at end of subsection (1), insert (" Provided also that no proceedings shall be instituted until the employer has been notified that a complaint has been lodged by the workman or his agent, and that proceedings will be taken within fourteen days, or such longer time as may be prescribed by the Board, unless he deals with the matters complained of ").—(Lord Desborough.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Perhaps I might say, as a matter of order, that I believe the proceeding of the noble Lord who has just spoken is contrary to the invariable practice of this House. I think that on the Report stage Amendments are not allowed to be moved without notice having previously been given. Of course, I recognise that the circumstances in this case are peculiar.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It is the most peculiar case I have ever known.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I accept the assurance of the noble Earl on that point. I say that I recognise that this case is differentiated from the ordinary in the great rapidity with which we have been conducting the Bill, and the short time that has elapsed between the different stages. I therefore do not wish to push the application of the rule too strictly; but if the House is allowed to move Amendments in a manner which is contrary to the usual practice, I trust that noble Lords will not attempt to carry the innovation too far.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I trust that we shall never have a Bill brought forward again in the way in which this Bill has been brought forward. None of us have over seen anything like it before. With regard to the particular stage we are now on, we have not had the Marshalled List of Amendments circulated; they have only just been printed, and the way in which I got my copy was by coming down to the House at about one o'clock.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I should be very sorry if the noble Earl was a victim in the manner he describes. I got my List this morning, as I think the majority of noble Lords did.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: It is not easy to give notice of Amendments to a Bill of which you have not the context before you. Many noble Lords did not receive the text of the re-printed Bill until this morning, in circumstances in which it was impossible to give printed notice. I say it in fear and trembling, but I understand that in another place the rule as to procedure on Report is a Standing Order and applies only to new clauses moved without notice, not to Amendments, hundreds of which I have seen moved at this stage.
LORD DESBOROUGH: As I am the culprit, I can assure the noble Earl the Leader of the House that if I had had any means of giving notice I should have taken advantage of them. But it was impossible to get the Amendment printed. It is rather a poor argument against a proviso that one has not given notice when it was absolutely impossible to do so.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: While I am sure that we all recognise the generous way in which the Leader of the House has been ready to meet us on the occasions when his aid has been sought, I must join my most hearty protest to those which have been made already against the fact, as I have ventured to say before, that we have been so extremely hurried on the most important measure connected with the land that I ever recollect in the whole of my career, fifty years now, in politics. I was rejoiced to hear what fell from the noble Earl on my left (Lord Camperdown). I certainly think that he was justified in every word he said,
628
and I sincerely hope that in any future arrangements of this nature dealing with Bills of this kind we may at least have the measures sent up at a reasonable time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suggest to the House that the Amendment should not be adopted. For two reasons. The first is that it provides that no proceedings shall be taken until the employer has been notified that a complaint has been lodged by a workman or his agent. Surely if those who are entrusted with its administration have reason to believe that the Bill has not been observed in certain cases, they ought to be at liberty to have proceedings taken even if no complaint has been made by or on behalf of the workman. It is a matter of public concern, and these are proceedings for the enforcement of public order in a matter which the Legislature has considered to be of national importance. The second reason why I suggest that the Amendment should not be adopted is this. I think that the requiring of notice at all would unduly hamper the proceedings. Notice very often may be given, but if you require by a rigid rule that notice shall be given before proceedings are taken you are adding another step and a step which is really unnecessary. For these two reasons I suggest that the Amendment is not a desirable one.
LORD HARRIS: With very great respect, I venture to hope that rather more consideration will be given to this proposal by the Government. The business of agriculture is not identical with many other businesses. In many cases the real farmer, the man who finds the working capital, is not present on the land himself. You may say that he ought to be, but you have to deal with the existing condition of affairs, which has come into being after many centuries of experience and has been largely brought about, in the particular case of which I am speaking, by the extremely adverse conditions that over-shadowed agriculture for many years. The result of that over-shadowing was that the landlord was compelled to take land in hand, and he still holds land in hand, being a busy man in other parts of England. Perhaps he works his land through an agent and through a bailiff; and in consequence of the mistake of one or other of those persons he may become liable under the Bill, and may, without his knowing, have proceedings

629
taken against him; and it will be notified in the Press, or suggested by those whose desire it is to make out that the landlord its an employer is a harsh person, that he has been trying to evade the Act, whereas he may be perfectly willing to give the wage that is fixed by the Wages Board, but, owing to the peculiar conditions of agriculture, he may be entirely in ignorance of the fact that his agents have not complied with the provisions of the Act. The noble and learned Lord says that the Act ought to be complied with. I agree with him. But there is nothing to prevent the Act being complied with in all its particulars
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT MILNER: There is a small alteration required in subsection (2) of Clause 4 in consequence of the addition which has just been made on the motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. The alteration will have to be made in the first three lines of the subsection. It is necessary to provide, in cases where the proper wages have not been paid but the employer was innocent and therefore cannot be convicted, that the workman shall get the arrears at the proper rate. With that object we propose to take out the first three lines and to insert the words in the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, subsection (2), leave out (" On the conviction of an employer under this section the court may by the conviction adjudge or order the employer convicted to pay in addition to any fine ") and insert (" In any proceedings
after this very useful, and not very difficult to carry out, notice has been given. I submit, further, that this is a criminal prosecution, and that an individual is going to be tried for a criminal offence of which he may be able to show himself entirely innocent. It surely is reasonable that the person who is going to be charged should have notice to that effect.
On Question, whether the proposed proviso shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-contents, 24.

CONTENTS

Camperdown, E.

Falmouth, V.

Hindlip, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Blythswood, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Boston, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Desborough, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun, L.

Chaplin, V.

Harris, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Howe, E.

Digby, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Selborne, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Marlborough, D.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Parmoor, L

Milner, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Somerleyton, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Barnard, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

against the employer under this section the court may, whether there is a conviction or not, order the employer to pay in addition to the fine, if any ").—(Viscount Milner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The numbering of Clauses 5 and 6 has to be changed. Clause 5 should be Clause 6, and Clause 6 should be Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
That the numbers of Clauses 5 and 6 be transposed.—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Establishment of Wages Board.
5.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall, as soon as may be and after consultation with the Minister of Labour, establish an Agricultural Wages Board; and such of the provisions of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, as are

631
set out (with modifications) in the First Schedule to this Act shall be deemed to be incorporated in this Part of this Act.
(2) The Agricultural Wages Board shall appoint district wages committees for such areas, consisting of one or more counties or county boroughs as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may by regulation prescribe:
Provided that if at any time the Agricultural Wages Board are satisfied that, in any area for which a district wages committee may be appointed, a representative joint committee, consisting of a chairman and persons representing in equal numbers employers and workmen engaged in agriculture, exists for purposes which include the fixing minimum rates of wages for workmen engaged in agriculture, the Board may recognise and appoint that committee to be the the district wages committee for the area.
(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, a district wages committee shall fix minimum rates of wages for workmen employed in agriculture in their district for time-work, and they may, if and so far as they think it necessary or expedient, fix minimum rates of wages for workmen employed in agriculture in their district for piece-work. Provided that any rate so fixed shall not have effect until it has been approved by the Agricultural Wages Board.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The next Amendment has been put down in response to the promise made by Lord Milner yesterday, that part only of the county might be the area.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, subsection (2), leave out (" consisting of one or more counties or county boroughs ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, in the proviso to subsection (2), leave out (" for which a district wages committee may be appointed ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The next Amendment deals with subsection (3). It is consequential on Lord Lansdowne's Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, subsection (3), after the words (" wages for ") where they first occur, insert (" able-bodied ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
LORD HARRIS: This appears to limit the fixing of a minimum rate of wages for piece-work to able-bodied workmen only. Does it mean that there will not be power to fix minimum wages for piece-work for any but able-bodied workmen?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand, the effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, was to exempt those who, owing to infirmity, are not able to do a full day's work, and are, therefore not entitled to the full wage; but it is intended to apply the fixing of the minimum to all workers not so incapacitated by infirmity of body or of mind. Consequently the provision as to able-bodied workmen would apply to grown men, to grown women, to girls, and to boys each according to ability. If he is an able-bodied person, there will be a minimum graded to suit his case according to age or otherwise; and in these circumstances it seems desirable to adopt the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke. Indeed, my impression is that the Amendment now before the House is involved with the Amendment of the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) moved yesterday.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power to enforce proper cultivation.
10.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries if in any case they are of opinion—

(a) that any land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; or

(b) that for the purpose of increasing in the national interest the production of food the mode of cultivating any land or the use to which any land is being put should be changed;

may serve notice on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate or use the land in accordance with such directions as the Board may give for securing that the cultivation shall be according to the rules of good husbandry or for securing the necessary change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of the land, as the case may be, and where compliance with any such directions, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, involves any breach of or non-compliance with any covenant or condition of the contract of tenancy, the Board may in the same or any subsequent notice so served direct that any such covenant or condition, so far as it interferes with compliance with such directions, shall be suspended, and may provide for securing to the landlord such payments or other benefits (if any) as the Board think just on account of any profit or benefit derived or expected to be derived by the tenant by reason of the suspension of the covenant or condition, and any such provision of the notice shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy.
Provided that if any person on whom any notice is served under this section is aggrieved by the notice, he may within the prescribed

633
time require the question whether the land has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice to be referred to arbitration in accordance with this part of this Act, and where any question is so referred to arbitration no action shall be taken for enforcing the directions given by the Board until the determination of the reference or except in accordance with the terms of the award and where the person on whom any notice is served is a tenant, the landlord shall have the same right as the tenant of requiring any question to be referred to arbitration.
(2) Where any notice is served on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall at the same time be sent to the landlord by registered post.
(3) If, in the opinion of the Board, the occupier fails to cultivate the land in accordance with directions so given, the Board, after the prescribed notice, may, if the occupier in default is a tenant, make such order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorising the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the order, and, if the occupier in default is not a tenant enter on and take possession of the land or of the holding of which it forms part for such time, and (either themselves or by any person authorised by them) do all such things, as appear to the Board necessary or desirable for the cultivation of the land of which possession has been taken, or for adapting such land for cultivation.
Any such order of the Board may contain such provisions as the Board think fit for adjusting the relations of landlord and tenant where the tenancy is determined; and any such provision of the order shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy.
(4) Where the Board have entered on any land under this provision they shall pay to the occupier such amount as would have been payable by way of compensation on account of crops, tillages or other matters by an incoming tenant, and the amount so payable shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration under this part of this Act.
(5) Where the Board have entered on any land under this provision they may, after the prescribed notice, let the land, or any part thereof, for any term not exceeding five years on such terms and conditions as the Board think fit, and at the best rent that, having regard to such terms and conditions, can reasonably be obtained:
Provided that—

(a) before any contract of tenancy is executed by the Board under this provision a draft thereof shall be sent to the owner of the land and a reasonable opportunity afforded him of objecting to any provision therein; and

(b) a copy of the contract of tenancy shall be sent to such owner as soon as possible after its execution.

(6) Any notice given by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purposes of this section, which directs the suspension of any covenant or condition shall be a sufficient defence to any action or other proceeding in respect of any breach of, or non-compliance with, the
634
covenant or condition so far as the breach or non-compliance is authorised by the notice of suspension.
(7) If at any time after a contract of tenancy of any land has been created by the Board, the owner of the land requires the Board to withdraw, the Board shall so withdraw as soon as reasonably may be.
(8) When the Board at any time withdraw from possession of any land of which they have taken possession under this section,

(a) they shall before withdrawing give the prescribed notice in writing of their intention to the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land, and such notice shall be given not less than six months previous to the determination of the occupation by the Board, and shall expire on one of the half-yearly days customary in the district where the land is situate; and

(b) they may recover from the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land such amount as represents the value to him of all acts of cultivation or adaptation for cultivation executed by the Board; and

(c) the land shall be subject to any tenancy created by the Board in like manner as if the tenancy had been created by the person who would but for the tenancy have been entitled to resume occupation of the land.

(9) Any person who is interested in any land in respect of which any notice is served or order made under this section or of which possession is taken under this section and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be entitled to be paid by the Board such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss on making a claim as prescribed, at least a year from the occurrence of the loss to be allowed for making the claim:
Provided that in the case of a claim for a notice requiring any grass land to be ploughed the time to be prescribed by the Board shall be such that a claim may be made at any time up to the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-six.
(10) The amount recoverable or payable by the Board under subsection (6) or subsection (7) of this section shall be determined in each case in default of agreement by arbitration under this part of this Act.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 9, line 17, subsection (1), leave out (" or use ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Subsection (2) of Clause 10 now stands as follows: "Where any notice is served on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall at the same time be sent of the landlord by registered post." It is obviously absurd to compel the copy to be sent by post to the landlord if it may be possible to hand it in at the right time.

635
We therefore propose to alter it in this way: "Where any notice is served on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord." Then at a subsequent stage we propose to insert a provision that any notice required to be sent under this Bill shall be sent by registered post. So that what will happen in this case is that, if it is not served upon the landlord personally at the moment it is served on the tenant, it will be sent to him by registered post at that time.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 10, lines 9 and 10, leave out (" by registered post ").—(Viscount Milner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 10, line 9, omit (" sent to ") and insert (" served on ").—(Viscount Milner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: In subsection (4) of this clause I move the insertion of the words "outgoing tenant" in place of the word "occupier." Your Lordships are doubtless aware that there are different times of entry upon farms. I believe that the majority of them are Michaelmas entries, but in some parts of England there are a great number which are either Lady Day or May Day entries. The subsection as it now stands says: "Where the Board have entered on any land under this provision they shall pay to the occupier…" Strictly speaking, if a new tenant has been found he would be the occupier. These men, of course, leave their crops behind them, and under the Agricultural Holdings Act and the custom of the different counties in which this Lady Day or May Day entry prevails, they have had to receive a considerable tenant right in payment of the crops they leave behind and for which they have prepared the ground. It was in order to meet those cases that the Amendment was drawn by the Government. But I want to make it quite clear, so that there can be no mistake. That is why I move this Amendment. Then I propose later to make the subsection read in this way: "Where the Board have entered on any land under this provision they shall pay to the outgoing tenant such amount as would have been due or payable on account of crops, tillage, and other matters by an incoming tenant." As a
636
matter of practice that payment is made between the incoming and the outgoing tenant, the incoming tenant succeeding to the crops which the other had left behind. Whether these words are necessary or not, I do not know. I think they would make it clearer. I understand that my noble friend Lord Milner, with whom I have had some conversation on this, holds that "occupier" in this case would mean the landlord. But if it means the tenant it would be the wrong man, because the tenant at that time would be the incoming tenant, and he, of course, would have nothing to receive. I move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, subsection (4), page 10, line 30, leave out (" occupier ") and insert (" outgoing tenant ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: Should the noble Viscount think fit to press his Amendment, the Government will not contest it. But I am bound to say that, if he prefers to put it in, he does so at his peril. In this sense. We know that here we are on rather ticklish ground, because there is some question whether the Amendments might not be challenged in the other House on the ground of privilege.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I certainly think the Amendments which the noble Viscount proposes, especially the omission of the words "by way of compensation," will render the subsection more difficult to defend. My interpretation of the word "occupier" here is what the noble Viscount has himself pointed out. I think that is the proper interpretation. In the presence of many noble Lords very learned in the law, whereas I have forgotten the little law I knew when I was a briefless barrister, I do not wish, however, to enter into any controversy on that point. For the reasons I have given, the Government will not resist the Amendment; but I cannot take any responsibility in the matter.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have nothing to say about the merits of this Amendment. It is a highly technical point, and I express no opinion. But I do protest against the statement of my noble friend opposite that any question of privilege is involved.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It is not my suggestion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is said to be a matter of privilege, but it is nothing but a usurpation of our rights to which we could not submit.
LORD BARNARD: I desire to support strongly the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin. The questions in connection with changes of tenancy are very complicated indeed. The noble Viscount has alluded to the fact that there are Lady Day and May Day, as well as Michaelmas Day, entries. But very often in my part of the country there are no less than three different days at which different portions of the farm are given up. I think that the proposals of the noble Viscount make the whole thing perfectly plain, and the farmers, landlords, and agents will understand exactly what is meant. But if you leave it in the rather confused form in which it is at present, I venture to think that there will be some risk of the outgoing tenant falling to the ground between the two stools, and losing that to which he is entitled by law.
LORD HARRIS: Surely the description "outgoing tenant" is the clearer. This Amendment makes it quite clear to whom the subsection refers.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I should not mind giving up the words "by way of compensation," although I rather agree on this point with my noble friend behind me (Lord Selborne). But I must put the first Amendment for the substitution of "outgoing tenant" for "occupier." I am indifferent as to whether "by way of compensation" is left in or not.
LORD PARMOOR: Leave it in, and then no question can arise.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am ready to do that.
LORD PARMOOR: If the noble Viscount leaves in the words "by way of compensation," I do not think any difference is made, and then no question of privilege can possibly arise.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 31, after (" would have been ") insert (" due or ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 32, leave out (" an ") and insert, (" the ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HARRIS: I move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Galway in subsection (5). The noble Viscount (Lord Milner) said that he would consider this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 36, after (" or ") [" let the land, or "], insert (" with the consent of the owner ").—(Lord Harris.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: We are prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I move to insert, in paragraph (a) of subsection (8), the words "except where the withdrawal is required by the owner of the land "after the word "withdrawing "at the beginning. It is necessary to insert these words, because otherwise the Board of Agriculture would have to give six months notice even where the withdrawal is required by the owner.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, after (" withdrawing ") insert (" except whore the withdrawal is required by the owner of the land ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Before we leave this Part of the. Bill, I should like to remind the noble Viscount of a suggestion which I ventured to make last night, and which, as I understood, he received with favour. It was this, that in all cases where the Board enters upon the possession of land under this Part of the Bill there should be an official record of the condition in which it finds the land, so that when at a subsequent period the question of compensation arises there may be some point of departure which will render it possible to ascertain whether the land has

639
suffered or not while the Board has been in possession of it. I understand that some procedure of that kind is actually provided at this moment in cases where, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, land is taken up in this manner, and I cannot help thinking that in some shape or form it ought to be clearly indicated that procedure of that kind is contemplated under this clause of the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope that the Government will be able to put in such words now. I would remind the noble Marquess that not only is this procedure being followed under the Defence of the Realm Act, but there is a clause in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908 especially dealing with this matter of record.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes; I think it is Section 27.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I have been furnished with an Amendment based upon the section in the Agricultural Holdings Act, if the House wishes for its insertion.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It is quite true, as the noble Marquess has stated, that it is a standing instruction now of the Board of Agriculture that where land is taken over such a record should in every case be made. It is obvious that in their own interests and for their own protection they are bound to make such an inventory; therefore I should not have thought it necessary to insert a clause, but if the House presses for it I am prepared to move one.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the noble Viscount will move it.
LORD SALTOUN: I think it is most important that this should be put into the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I may add that there is a similar section in the Scottish Small Holdings Act which orders the Board to have this return made, but it never is made and it never has been made.
VISCOUNT MILNER: That seems to be rather an argument against putting it in. At present you have it in practice, but
640
apparently by putting it in an Act of Parliament it may upset the practice.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 10, after line 28, insert as a new subsection:
" (4) If within three months after the Board have entered on any land, the person who was inoccupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires, a record of the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the land shall be made within three months after the date of the requisition by a person to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution; and in default of agreement, the cost of making such record shall be borne by the Board and the person so previously in occupation in equal portions ").—(Viscount Milner.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think I understood the noble Viscount to say that the person in occupation was to make the requisition. Surely the owner is the person specially interested.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Is not the person in occupation the owner? The Board may call upon a tenant to do certain things in the way of cultivation; the tenant does not do them; the Board then has power to turn him out; thereupon the owner becomes the occupier. Before the Board can enter, the owner is the occupier.
LORD SALTOUN: But the Board need not turn the occupier out. He can be left there, and when the improvements are done by the Board the owner may resume his tenancy again. Does the noble Viscount understand?
VISCOUNT MILNER: No, I am afraid I do not.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think that three months is a very long time; it ought to be done much sooner than that. As a general rule, when these records are taken on a change of tenants it is done at the time of the change. There ought to be as little delay as possible after the Board has entered and taken possession, because a lot of mischief might be done in three months. I would suggest "within one month."
VISCOUNT MILNER: The Amendment reads: "If within three months after the Board have entered on any land the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires…" He

641
may require it the next day. It is "not later than three months."
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think there ought to be a limit to the time.
VISCOUNT MILNER: There is such a limit. There is nothing to prevent him making the requisition the next minute.
LORD HARRIS: The argument of the noble Viscount is, as I understand it, that the original landowner becomes the occupier. But the Board are going to come in as a freeholder; the Board are going to take possession of the land, which excludes the landowner under this Bill. It is the fact that the Board take possession of the land, and the landlord has no more right in that land. He has only the right to whatever you choose to pay him. But you take possession.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The moment the land is let, he can claim to step back into his place.
LORD HARRIS: Yes, as the landowner, but not the farmer necessarily. The farmer in the course of six years may die, or otherwise altogether disappear. The old landowner—or his executors—remains, and he is the person who ought to ask for the valuation.
VISCOUNT MILNER: But the old landowner has become the occupier before the Board can enter. The Board can enter only after the original tenant has been already dispossessed, and when the tenant is put out by the Board the owner is the occupier.
LORD HARRIS: I know that.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Then the owner has his chance of carrying out the demands of the Board, and, if he does not avail himself of the chance, then the Board has the right to step in. The owner is the occupier at that moment. There is no other.
LORD HARRIS: I say that the Board has become the owner.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, No.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I had an Amendment on this particular point on the Paper yesterday, but I did not move it because the Lord Chancellor explained to me that when the tenant has been turned out the owner becomes the occupier. Then the Board, before they could get possession of the land, must renew to the owner the notice, and then the owner would have the opportunity of doing the things which they wish him to do. If he does not do them, the Board would then have to take action against him as they would have taken action against the tenant if the tenant had been in possession.
LORD BARNARD: Would there be any objection to describing him as the landlord? He has been so described in previous enactments. Or alternatively to define "occupier"? He is sometimes spoken of as "the owner" also; in fact, you are describing the same person by three different terms.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is a legal question on which I am not capable of giving an opinion, but my view is that the landowner is always the occupier until and unless he puts somebody else in that position by letting the land.
LORD PARMOOR: As I took them down, the words of the Amendment now before us are: "who was in occupation at the time of the entry." I should have thought that the meaning of this language was that the tenant was in occupation at the time of entry. Afterwards other conditions might arise. I suggest that the word "owner" might be put in to make it quite clear.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I very much dislike altering words in a draft that has been carefully considered by legal experts who assure me that it has the effect which I have tried to explain to the House.
LORD PARMOOR: Then I agree.
VISCOUNT MILNER: If the House wishes, I am prepared to put in "as soon as possible" in the place of "within three months."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that "within three months" is better.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It seems to be the opinion of the House that my Amendment should be left as it is.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
General provisions applicable to Part IV.
12.—(1) Arbitrations under this part of this Act shall be before a single arbitrator under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908: Provided that, the arbitrator shall be nominated, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution.
(2) The Board may, with respect to any area consisting of one or more counties or county boroughs, authorise any body of persons constituted in the prescribed manner, to exercise on behalf of the Board, subject to such appeal to the Board as may be prescribed, any of the powers of the Board under this Part of this Act, and may if they think fit prescribe the procedure and the method of authentication of any notice or other instrument issued by any such body: Provided that the regulations shall provide that the body so constituted shall in the first instance consist of or comprise the persons who immediately before this Part of this Act comes into operation were acting as members of the War Agricultural Executive Committees constituted under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for the counties and county boroughs comprised in the area.
(3) The powers exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country under the Defence of the Realm Regulations shall cease to operate at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act or at the termination of the present war whichever is the earlier and thereupon this Part of this Act shall come into operation.
(4) In this Part of the Act the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Board.
VISCOUNT MILNER: In Clause 12, subsection (3), in the part about the powers exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Defence of the Realm Regulations coming to an end, we want to preserve some of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which have nothing to do with the matters dealt with in Part IV of this Bill when the rest come to an end and the provisions of this Bill come into force. For instance, there are powers for the prevention of floods, for the cleaning and maintenance of main drains, and matters of that hind, which powers are contained in the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Supposing the war does not come to an end within twelve months. Twelve months hence the provisions of this Bill take the place of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. We do not want
644
all those portions of the Regulations which deal with matters unaffected by Part IV of this Bill necessarily to lapse. As the subsection stands, they will lapse. The matter will have to be dealt with in three Amendments, and the subsection will then read: "The powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country shall, with respect to the matters dealt with in this Part of this Act, cease to operate," etc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 15, after (" powers ") insert (" under the Defence of the Realm Regulations ")
Page 13,line 17, omit (" under the Defence of the Realm Regulations ")
Page 13,line 17, after (" shall ") insert (" with respect to the matters dealt with in this Part of this Act cease to operate ").—(Viscount Milner.)
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Viscount may recollect that the words in the subsection now are words which I suggested yesterday, and he pointed out that they might want modification. I quite agree with the modification which he suggests. Whether the words would carry the required meaning without the modification, it is not necessary to discuss. It is here made quite clear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think that these Amendments are right, and I trust that my noble friend the Leader of the House will condone his colleague for moving them without notice.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT MILNER: There is one trifling Amendment just before the one of which the House has approved—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is directly contrary to all the rules of the House to go back on Report.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Then I will move the Amendment on Third Reading.
Clause 14:
Powers of entry and inspection.
14. Any person authorised in that behalf by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or by any person or body of persons exercising any powers of the Board on their behalf may, for the purpose of carrying this Act, into effect, on the production (if so required) of his authority, enter on and inspect any land.
If any person prevents or obstructs the entry for the purpose of this Act upon any land of any person authorised under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I move to leave out the words "person or" in the second line of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 23, leave out (" person or ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Before we pass from this clause, I should like to remind the noble Viscount of another suggestion which I ventured to make yesterday, and which he did not at all discourage at the time. It was this. Clause It enables any person authorised by the Board, if armed by a proper authority, to enter on and inspect any land. I suggested that it was only reasonable to stipulate that in all such cases notice should be given to the occupier that an inspection of the kind was intended. I cannot conceive that there should be any objection to the proposal. The occupier might be away at market, or otherwise unable to be present when the inspector paid his visit. If I am not out of order I should like to move an Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, after line 20, insert (" The occupier shall in all such cases be served with notice of the date on which the inspection is to take place ").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Power to require annual agricultural returns.
16.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, in order to obtain such information as is necessary for the purpose of the proper exercise by the Board of their powers under this Act, by notice served by post or otherwise on the occupier of any agricultural land or the person having the management of any such land, require him to make to such person, within such time and in such form as the Board may prescribe, a return in writing with respect to the cultivation of that land, the crops and live stock thereon, and the owner thereof.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I have three small Amendments to move in subsection (1) of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 16, leave out (" by post or otherwise ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 18, leave out (" to such person ")—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 19, after (" form ") insert (" and to such person ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Definitions.
18. For the purposes of this Act—

(a) the expression "agriculture" includes the use of lane as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or osier land, or woodland, or for market gardens or nursery grounds, and the expression "agricultural" shall be construed accordingly; and

(b) the expression "cultivation" includes use for grazing, meadow, or pasture; and the expression "cultivate" has a corresponding meaning; and

(c) the expression "workman" includes boys, women, and girls; and

(d) the expression "employment" means employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, and the expressions "employ" and "employer" shall be construed accordingly; and

(e) the expression "quarter" means, in the case of wheat, four hundred and eighty imperial pounds, and in the case of oats three hundred and twelve imperial pounds.

LORD DESBOROUGH: I have only one more Amendment, which I have handed in, and I apologise for not having had it printed. Your Lordship may remember that I raised the point last night as to whether it was intended by His Majesty's Government to extend the privileges of this Bill to orchards, osier lands, and woodlands, also to market gardens and nursery grounds. I then moved an Amendment—which I understood was going to be considered by the Government—the effect of which would be to make the clause read: "The expression ' agriculture ' includes the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, but does not include the use of laud as orchard, or osier land, or woodland, or for market gardens, or nursery grounds, and the

647
expression ' agriculture ' shall be construed acordingly." One of my objects in moving that Amendment was to ascertain from His Majesty's Government whether, by including orchards, osier lauds, and woodlands in the Bill, with all the advantages they would naturally obtain under Part I, they also intended that the Wages Boards, with the various categories of labour, should apply. It will be remembered that this is a Corn Production Bill, and that the class to which I have referred obtain no advantages under the minimum prices set out in the Bill for the cultivation of wheat and oats. I should also like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to include gardeners employed in private grounds. It seems to me that if you include orchards under "agriculture," most private grounds would come in. My own would. In that case all private gardeners are included. If that is not intended, I have a proviso prepared to meet the occasion; but if it is the intention to include woodmen and osier men and all the others in the wages parts—though I do not see how in those industries they can get the benefit of the minimum prices—perhaps we shall have some light thrown on that important point. If private gardeners come in under "orchards" they might be placed in a very high category with regard to wages, because I take it that a gardener who operates a mowing machine would come under the heading of an agricultural mechanic. The Amendment which I moved yesterday was to be considered to-day. I was given an undertaking to that effect. That is why I move my present Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 12, leave out second (" or ") and insert (" but does not include the use of land as ").—(Lord Desborough.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: We have had a little skirmish as to what might or might not be moved on this occasion, but I admit that my noble friend is in order in moving this Amendment because it was agreed last night that it should be brought up again. I can satisfy the noble Lord on one point, but not, I am afraid, on the other. I have made inquiry of our legal advisers about this, and they assure me that it is certain that the mention of market gardens or nursery grounds, or even of orchards, cannot bring ordinary gardeners
648
under the clause. So that the fears of the noble Lord under this head have no foundation. On the other point, we do not see our way to exclude from the benefit of Part II of the Bill any agricultural workers even if they are engaged on osier lands, orchards, or woodlands. In our opinion it would be practically impossible to make these distinctions, and we ask the House to agree to let the clause stand in its present form.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I would ask my noble friend (Lord Desborough) whether, even if it were possible to establish the distinction which he desires to set up there is any practical advantage in doing it. It seems to me evident that if you fix a minimum rate of wages for people who are all included in the generic term "agricultural labourers "they will all expect to get it, and they will get it. If you have two men living side by side in the same village, one employed, let us say, in the cultivation of the fields, and the other in the osier bed, it seems to me to follow inevitably that there will be a sympathetic rise in wages in the case of the man employed on the osier bed, and nobody will derive any advantage from trying to limit too strictly the classes to which this particular subsection refers.
LORD HINDLIP: I took part in the slight skirmish last night on the question of orchards. Was anything discovered as to whether Clause 9 of this Bill applies to orchards—whether they are under the section to enforce cultivation?
VISCOUNT MILNER: I do not think that under the power of enforcing cultivation you can do anything with an orchard. Paragraph (b) of Clause 18 says: "The expression ' cultivation ' includes use for grazing, meadow, or pasture."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I thought that we had received an explicit assurance that paragraph (a) of Clause 18 had reference to Part II of the Bill and not to Part IV.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes; that is so, because the word "agriculture" does not occur in Part IV at all.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is "cultivation "?
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes; that is so.
LORD PARMOOR: In corroboration of what the noble Viscount has already said, I do not think that this definition could possibly include the ordinary private gardener, and it does not occur to me to be intended to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have nothing to say upon that paragraph, But, as the noble Viscount has referred to paragraph (b), will there not have to be a modification with regard to "cultivation "? The words are: "the expression ' cultivation ' includes use for grazing, meadow, or pasture." It is not an exclusive phrase, and might include something else.
LORD DESBOROUGH: If I may say so, I am satisfied with the explanation as to the meaning of the paragraph given by the noble Viscount, and I do not wish to persist in my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move formally to leave out the word "includes" in paragraph (b), for the purpose of inserting the word "means." I wish to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that the definition is accurate or sufficient, because as it stands all it says is: "The expression ' cultivation ' includes use for grazing, meadow, or pasture." If the Government mean that "cultivation" should be confined to the three things mentioned—namely, grazing, meadow, or pasture—they should say so, and not use the word" includes."
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 16, leave out (" includes ") and insert (" means ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: I cannot accept the proposed alteration. The expression "cultivation" means more than use only for grazing, meadow, or pasture.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am obliged to the noble Viscount, But he will see that it does not exclude market gardens and other things from Part IV of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I wish to ask a question with regard to paragraph (c) of Clause 18. I want an assurance upon the subject. It is not that I think there can be very much doubt about it, but it says: "The expression ' workmen ' includes boys, women, and girls." I presume that the meaning of that is that the wages of those people will be fixed by the local district committees, and that their various rates of wages will be settled in that way. But I want to be quite sure that the rates of wages fixed in that way do not come under Clause 4, subsection (4), which says: "The provisions of this section as to payment of wages at a minimum rate shall operate as respects able-bodied men." Of course, women are not men. At the same time, the word "workmen" being used, I should like a positive assurance that wages fixed for women and children will not come under Clause 4, subsection (4), and that no claim will be made against the employer subsequently for having paid to them a wage which was lower than the minimum wage for able-bodied men.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I have made particular inquiry about this, and the point is quite clear. The noble Earl must distinguish between "workmen" and "men." It is "workmen" which is defined here as including women and children; but the clause which provides the 25 s. minimum says expressly "men." Therefore the word "men" is not affected by the interpretation which makes "workmen" include women, boys, and girls.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am glad to hear that explanation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There may be a fixed minimum for women and boys?
VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes. But the 25 s. clause does not provide for that.
VISCOUNT MILNER: At the end of Clause 18 I wish to move an Amendment dealing with something about which I gave a promise earlier in the evening. It is a separate subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, at the end of Clause 18, insert the following new subsection:
" ( ) Any notice under this Act may be served on the person to whom it is to be given either personally or by registered post."—(Viscount Milner.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose the noble Viscount moves this here because he does not see where else he can move it. It does not belong to this clause. I suggest to him that he should move it in its proper place on Third Reading. It is true that Amendments on Third Reading have to be given notice of in writing, but in my experience, in difficult circumstances, the House has been willing to give leave to have Amendments moved on Third Reading without notice. In that way the noble Viscount could put the Amendment in its proper place. If it goes in here, it will be rather absurd drafting.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I was told by the draftsman that this was the proper place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If that is so, I have nothing more to say.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Application to Scotland and Ireland.
19.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:—

(a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries;

(b) Subsection (1) and subsection (2) and the proviso to subsection (3) of the section of this Act relating to the establishment of a Wages Hoard shall not apply to Scotland, and in lion thereof the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of this Act shall be deemed to be incorporated in Part II of this Act, and references in this Act to the Agricultural Wages Board and to a district wages committee shall be construed as references respectively to the central committee and the district committee constituted under the provisions of that Schedule;

(c) The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, shall be substituted for the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908:

Provided that where under this Act the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is a party to an arbitration, the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom in which the land affected is situate shall, in the Second Schedule to the first-mentioned Act, be substituted for the Board;

(d) The sheriff principal of the sheriffdom in which the land affected is situate shall be substituted for the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and an agricultural executive committee and the district thereof, shall respectively, be substituted for a war agricultural executive committee constituted under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and a county or county borough;

(e) The Edinburgh Gazette shall be substituted for the London Gazette;

652

(f) Part III of this Act shall have effect subject to and without prejudice to the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1911, and in fixing the rent of a holding the Scottish Land Court shall not lake into consideration the operation of Part I or Part II of this Act;

(g) The provisions of Part IV of this Act with respect to the determination of tenancies shall not apply to land in the occupation of a landholder or a statutory small tenant under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1911, but the powers of entering on and taking possession of land and cultivating the land, or adapting it for cultivation, conferred by this Act may, notwithstanding anything in Part IV of this Act, be exercised in respect of land in such occupation; and

(h) Where a tenant of shootings is, or under the operation of Part IV of this Act becomes the only tenant of land, the owner of the land shall for the purposes of the said Part IV, if the Board of Agriculture for Scotland so by order decide, be deemed to be the occupier thereof, and the Board's power to suspend any covenant or condition of the contract of tenancy shall in such case be deemed to include a power to determine the tenancy or any such covenant or condition and to make such provisions as the Board think fit for the adjustment of the relations of landlord and tenant.

(2) This Act shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—

(a) References to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be construed as references to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland;

(b) A separate Agricultural Wages Board shall be established for Ireland; and the separate Board so established shall be substituted for the Agricultural Wages Board; the provision as to wages at the rate of at least twenty-five shillings a week, and the provisions as to the retrospective effect of a minimum rate of wages for able-bodied men shall not apply, except that the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland or a district wages committee in fixing a minimum rate of wages for able-bodied men may, if they think proper, direct that the rate so fixed shall operate as from such earlier date as may be specified by them, not being a date prior to the passing of this Act, and in that event the last mentioned provisions shall apply as respects that rate with the substitution of a reference to the date so specified for the reference to the commencement of this Act;

(c) Where a person other than the occupier was, on the first day of September in the year in which wheat or oats were produced, entitled under a conacre agreement to the use of the land on which they were produced, that person shall be substituted for the occupier for the purpose of any payments in respect of the wheat or oats under Part I of this Act;

653

(d) Questions and amounts requiring to be determined for the purposes of Part III or Part IV of this Act shall be determined by the Irsh Land Commission on the application of any poison interested instead of by arbitration, and the powers and jurisdiction exercisable by the Land Commission in relation to applications under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts may be exercised by the Land Commission in relation to any applications under this provision;

(e) Part III of this Act in its application to Ireland shall have effect subject and without prejudice to the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, and, in rising the judicial rent of a holding after the passing of this Act, the court shall not take into consideration the operation of Part I or Part II of this Act as respects the holding or tenant. Proceedings by way of ejectment for non-payment of rent shall be deemed to be proceedings for enforcing payment of rent within the meaning of Part III of this Act;

(f) Part IV of this Act in its application to Ireland shall have effect subject to the following further modifications:—

(i) the powers of entering on and taking possession of land and cultivating the land or otherwise dealing with it may be exorcised whether the occupier in default is or is not a tenant; and

(ii) the provisions with respect to the determination of tenancies shall not apply;

For the purpose of enforcing proper cultivation of land in Ireland the additional provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if they were included in Part IV of this Act;

(g) The Dublin Gazette shall be substituted for the London Gazette.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to omit from the proviso in subsection (1) (c) of Clause 19 the words "where under this Act the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is a party to an arbitration." This Amendment is one which I mentioned last night, but which was postponed until to-day. Its effect would be that all questions which related to rents and which were between landlord and tenant would come before the sheriff. It is not necessary for me to repeat that in Scotland there is an absolute want of trust in our Board of Agriculture. I am sure that any Scottish Lords present will confirm this. I am bound to say that I have no personal reason to complain. Indeed, if I had, I probably should not be making this Motion, because I do not approve of people moving in matters in which they are personally concerned. But the distrust of this Board in Scotland is widespread, and we feel that we have no
654
confidence in their judgment. We trust the sheriff absolutely, and I believe that we always obtain on the whole what everybody considers is justice from him. I cannot make the same statement with regard to the Board of Agriculture, and we think that where there are cases between landlord and tenant they should come before the sheriff. As this Bill was originally drawn, the Board of Agriculture might have had to do with the appointment of the arbitrator in cases in which they were personally concerned. That has now been cut out; but there remains to them the power of appointing the arbitrator in all cases between landlords and tenants in which the Board are not concerned. I am sorry to put your Lordships to trouble, but this opinion to which I have referred is so widespread in Scotland, and it has been so impressed upon me, that I shall feel it necessary to ask your Lordships to divide, if for no other purpose than as a protest against the action of this Board. I do not think if is necessary to say more. I hope that your Lordships will agree to leave out these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lines 6 and 7, leave out (" where under this Act the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is a party to an arbitration ").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD STANMORE: The provisions as to arbitration in this Bill are contained in Clause 9 as regards Part III, and in Clause 12 as regards Part IV. With regard to Part IV, the noble Earl's Amendment has already received effect. The question, therefore, resolves itself into who is to appoint the arbitrator for the purposes of Part III in the event of disagreement. As the noble Earl has pointed out, under Clause 19 (1) (c) it is provided that the sheriff is to do this where the Board is a party; but the effect of the Amendment will be to extend this provision to cases of disagreement where the Board is not a party. As I pointed out last night, under the Schedule to the Agriculture Holdings (Scotland) Act the Board invariably nominates the arbiter in ordinary arbitrations under that Act where disagreement occurs. The Government cannot admit that under Part III there is any justification for a departure from the ordinary rule applicable to Scotland and for a discrimination between Scotland and England, where the Board of Agriculture appoints the

655
arbitrator in cases of disagreement. I should like to remind your Lordships that the Secretary for Scotland is responsible to Parliament for all the acts of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, who under Statute are to comply with all instructions issued by him. If, therefore, there should be reason to complain of the appointment of any particular arbitrator the responsibility for such an appointment rests with the Secretary for Scotland even if no change is made in the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I must press it.
LORD SALTOUN: I trust that the noble Earl will divide upon this Amendment. This is considered to be a serious matter in Scotland. The Board of Agriculture in England is a Ministry; it is a well-established Board under a responsible Minister. But the Board of Agriculture in Scotland is entirely different. It is an off-shoot, and is no more than a department of the Scottish Office. I maintain that nobody—tenant-farmers, proprietors, nobody—has the slightest confidence in the Scottish Board in any way. I myself have held my property now for thirty years, and I am glad to say that I have never yet had a dispute with any tenant, and certainly I have never had any need
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I move, in subsection (2) (b), after the words "A separate Agricultural Wages
to call in an arbitrator. I trust that such a thing will never happen to me. But in cases where disputes may arise between landlord and tenant we most strongly object to allowing the Department to have a "finger in the pie," so to speak. We have the sheriff, who from time immemorial has been accustomed to appoint arbitrators in disputes of all kinds, and we have perfect confidence in him. Why should we be placed in the position of having put upon us a Board in which nobody has any confidence? We feel this to be a very great grievance; in fact, so strongly do we feel that I hope that the noble Earl will divide, and that your Lordships will support us and carry the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am sorry that the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment. I do not wish to repeat what has been said both now and last night, but I am sure that if the Government could accept the Amendment it would give great satisfaction in Scotland and help the working of the Bill very much. Therefore I hope that noble Lords present will support my noble friend in his Amendment.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Salisbury, M.

Milner, V.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Howe, E.

Harlech, L.

Lucan, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Marlborough, D.

Ranksborough, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Somerleyton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Stamnore, L. [Teller.]

Lincolnshire, M.

Goschen, V.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Barnard, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Blythswood, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Desborough, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Chaplin, V.

Hindlip, L.

Falmouth, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Board shall be established for Ireland," to insert "to be appointed by the President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland." This Amendment is very similar to the one which has just been moved by Lord

657
Camperdown, except that it applies to Ireland instead of to Scotland. It shows a certain amount of distrust of the tribunal which is to establish the Agricultural Wages Board. Last spring, when this Bill was first talked about, I believe it was intended to form a Central Wages Board for Ireland, and various gentlemen were approached as to whether they would serve on this Central Board. The proposed chairman was approached, and six other gentlemen. They were gentlemen whose names gave satisfaction to everybody concerned, both employers and employed. That selection was made by the Chief Secretary; and there is some apprehension lest under the Bill as it now stands the selection will be made by the Department of Agriculture instead of by the Chief Secretary as such. The noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal may tell me that the Chief Secretary really intends to appoint the Wages Board himself. But we do not know how long the present Chief Secretary may continue to be Chief Secretary. We are anxious that it should be not only an intention but that we should know as a fact that this Board is to be appointed by the Government, and there should be no chance of any political bias in it.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 16, after (" Ireland ") insert (" to be appointed by the President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland ").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This is not quite a true analogy with the Amendment just moved by my noble friend Lord Camperdown. This Amendment is to say that the President of the Department of Agriculture shall determine this point, and that his colleague in the House of Commons should not be allowed to intervene in the matter. The noble Lord says that nobody knows how long the present Chief Secretary will be Chief Secretary. Equally nobody knows how long the Vice-President will be Vice-President. And if my noble friend is satisfied with the Chief Secretary of to-day, it is possible that six months hence he might prefer the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture. I therefore think that this Amendment is one which is so speculative in its character that it must as much militate against the views of Lord Oranmore as be in favour of them. I am afraid that assurances are of very little satisfaction to my noble friend.
658
He did, however, betray himself into expressing satisfaction with something which Mr. Duke announced recently about the Wages Board. I can repeat that view expressed by the Chief Secretary. He is President of the Department of Agriculture; and the announcement which the Chief Secretary made a short time ago about the Wages Board when he mentioned provisionally the names of certain gentlemen whom he proposed to invite gave general satisfaction and met with approval throughout Ireland. In resisting the Amendment on the Paper I can only say what I trust will satisfy the noble Lord, that the Chief Secretary intends to adhere to the arrangements which he provisionally outlined recently, and he proposes to attend personally to the establishment and the constitution of the Wages Board in his official capacity as President of the Department of Agriculture. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be mollified.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: In view of what has been said by my noble friend, I naturally cannot persist in my Amendment. I must tell him that his assurance has given me the greatest satisfaction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I ask your Lordships' permission to move the next Amendment which appears on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Oranmore under a misapprehension. The object of it is to ensure as far as possible that a fair trial shall be accorded to everybody who may be summoned under Clause 4 of this Bill. As the Bill now stands, any trial which takes place under Clause 4 comes before the local magistrates. As your Lordships who come from Ireland are well aware, the status of the magistracy in Ireland has been very greatly depreciated during the last twenty years. Many small shopkeepers, small farmers, and even publicans hold the Commission of the Peace, and although in most cases they would, I have no doubt, earnestly wish to carry out justice, yet being in such a position they are very much open to local pressure and intimidation, direct and indirect, and it would be extremely unlikely in many parts of Ireland that anybody summoned under Clause 4 could be confident of receiving a fair trial. The Amendment stands equally in favour of the earner of

659
wages, because where a Bench consists, as it might in many cases, of a great majority of small farmers, they would be—I have no doubt unconsciously—biased from the point of view of the payer of wages rather than from the point of view of the earner of wages. Under my Amendment the adjudicator of such cases as would arise under Clause 4 would be the resident stipendiary magistrates, known as the resident magistrates, or in the Dublin Metropolitan area, which comprises a large part of the county of Dublin, the Metropolitan Police magistrates, men who are well acquainted through their daily work with the questions that would arise under the clause, and men who, being stipendiaries, are not liable to the bias to which I have referred. This Amendment would create a feeling of confidence all through Ireland as to the probability of just wages under Clause 4. I believe that it would be received with pleasure and with approval all through that country, although perhaps silently; and in most cases it would increase the chances of justice being properly administered. Therefore I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 31, after (" Act ") insert (" The court of summary jurisdiction to adjudicate under the provisions of section four of this Act shall consist of a resident magistrate or a Dublin Metropolitan magistrate within the Dublin Metropolitan Police area ").—(The Earl of Arran.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am sorry to say that I look upon this Amendment as somewhat controversial in character. The duty to be performed by the Court of summary jurisdiction under Clause 4 of the Bill is to determine whether the minimum rate for agricultural labour has been paid according to the Statute. That, no doubt, is a matter which may present difficulties, especially at the outset of the operation of the Act. But in itself it is a fairly simple problem to determine, and a Court of summary jurisdiction has been considered on the whole the most convenient venue for the determination of those controversies. This Amendment of my noble friend Lord Arran excludes the ordinary unpaid magistracy from adjudicating in all such cases. I must point out to the noble Earl that I am ready to concede the latter part of his Amendment, because, as it so happens, that is already the practice
660
under the law. In Ireland the existing law makes the Dublin Metropolitan magistrate into the Court of summary jurisdiction. To that extent, therefore. I can satisfy my noble friend. But as regards the rest of the country, I am sorry that I am not in a position to meet his request. I can understand the case indicated generally by my noble friend, in which agrarian or political matters are at dispute, where bias might be shown by what I call the ordinary magistrates. But hero the sole issue is whether or not the employer has paid a weekly rate of wages according to the terms laid down. This Amendment is really a very large constitutional innovation. It amounts, in a very important matter, to the abolition of the unpaid magistracy and the substitution of stipendary magistrates in their places universally. I believe that much may be said for a system being applied to Ireland and to England which applies successfully, I consider, in Scotland, but I venture to point out that this is not really a suitable occasion upon which to bring forward such a very large and far-reaching change. Therefore I propose to ask the House to decline to accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very sorry to hear what my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has said. I have had occasion to hear something about this matter lately, and I confess that I think there is a very strong claim to be made out for the Amendment of my noble friend on behalf of the labourers. Ireland is a peculiar country in many respects, but in nothing more than this, that the farmers are in the majority and the agricultural labourers are in the minority. And the two classes are wholly distinct. As I am informed, they do not merge even to the extent to which they do in many parts of England and Scotland. I think it is a very serious thing that this matter should, from the point of view of the labourer, be adjudicated by a Court of summary jurisdiction, in which the farmers may, and probably will in a great many cases, have the majority. The conditions are so different from anything that obtains in England that I do not think it is any real answer to say that this would be setting up a different precedent from that prevailing in England. My noble friend also said that there could be no political considerations in this matter. But cannot

661
there? In Ireland everything in turned into politics on occasion, and I can imagine not only that the labourer may receive scant justice in some cases because of the composition of the Court in the mailer of class, but in others that if the landlord who is a Unionist happens to be the employer he will receive very scant consideration of his case from a Court composed entirely of his political opponents. I must say that I should have thought there was a very real case made out for making this exception.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I do not propose to support this Amendment through thick and thin. But I think it is fair to the noble Earl who moved it to say that the decision of the Court will not affect the bare question of fact whether the minimum rate of wage has been paid. The Court before whom the case comes may have also to consider the very delicate question of whether, not knowing of the non-payment of the proper rate, the employer had used that reasonable diligence by which he might have found out what was going on. That is not at all an easy question to determine, and might very easily be influenced by considerations which one may describe as not being strictly judicial.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we are entitled to a little further answer from His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: On which point?
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the points which were urged by my noble friend Lord Selborne just now. He submitted a very important argument directed to show that not only would the ordinary magistrates not be fair, or might not be fair, as between the landowners and their political opponents, but also as between the farmers and the labourers. We certainly thought that this was an argument which it was due to the House should be replied to. I confess that on the face of it my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Arran) has made out a very strong case, We are here to do justice, and I do not think that merely the fear of difficulties in another place—which I imagine is what what is at the back of the mind of my noble friend opposite—ought to deter us unless he is able to address rather a stronger argument than the one he put before.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD rose in his place, when
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said: If the noble Earl is rising to speak again, I wish to point out that on Report a noble Lord can speak only once. Some other member of the Government must say something.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18, Not-contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Cholmondeley, M.

Chaplin, V.

Hindlip, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falmouth, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Knaresborough, L.

Camperdown, E.

Oranmore and Browne, L. [Teller.]

Doncaster; E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Blythswood, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Lucan, E.

Desborough, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Digby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lincolnshire, M.

Barnard, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Colebrooke, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Eldon, E.

Emmott, L.

Howe, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Ranksborough, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Marlborough, D.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Goschen, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Milner, V.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have an Amendment which I regret to say is not upon the Paper, but it was impossible last night to determine the point at which it should be moved until the Bill had been re-printed. The Amendment is in Clause 19, to leave out "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (f) of subsection (2), and to insert the words "the provisions of subsection (3) of section (12) shall not apply." That entitles the Act to be worked in Ireland concurrently with the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Acts; in other words, the Third Schedule, which deals with cultivation of land in Ireland, will not be postponed in its date of operation, as in England, until the Defence of the Realm Act lapses, but will come into operation forthwith. It is desired to retain the Defence of the Realm Act powers because circumstances may arise which would make their employment necessary. But the great object of this Amendment is to change the criminal procedure involved. At the present moment, if a man commits a breach of the Tillage Orders under the Defence of the Realm Act he is not only liable to immense fines and to imprisonment, but technically, I believe, he is liable to be shot. The Department of Agriculture desires that the procedure outlined in the Third Schedule for enforcing the tillage of land in Ireland should proceed under the civil, as opposed to the military Statute. My Amendment effects that object. It is one which I gather will be received not with dissatisfaction, as the present system is clearly open to objection if a proper substitute can be found. I must make it clear, however, that Part IV of the Bill does not supersede the power of making a Defence of the Realm Regulation. Contingencies may occur which may require to be dealt with promptly by emergency Regulation, such as flooding, or compulsorily spraying of potatoes, which may be necessary in the case of blight, or Orders might be required for saving seed flax to produce linen for military purposes. But subject to that, it is proposed by this Amendment to allow Part IV of the Bill to come into force immediately.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 24, omit (" and ") and insert:
(" (ii) the provisions of subsection (3) of section 12 shall not apply ").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The Amendment to Clause 20 of which I have given notice is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, after (" Act ") insert (" shall except as otherwise provided come into operation at the date of the passing of the Act and ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
13.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may appoint such number of persons (including women) as they think fit to be appointed members of the Agricultural Wages Board or to act as members of district wages committees.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Amendment is to insert the words of which I have given notice at the end of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 13. I wish to make it plain that I do not move this Amendmet out of any distrust of the present President of the Board of Agriculture, but nobody can foresee who is going to occupy the position of President in the future, and I want, if possible, to safeguard the position, so that the number of appointed members shall always be but a very small proportion only in relation to the representatives of the employers and employed.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 15, after (" committees ") insert (" provided herein that the number of persons so appointed shall not exceed one quarter of the total number of members of the Agricultural Wages Board or of any district wages committee.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: The words express the desire and intention of the Government, and I am very glad to accept them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I move to omit from paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule the words "Where there has been a change of occupiers during the year, the amount shall be payable by the person who was occupier at the end of the year." I think that if these words are left in, very serious injustice will occur in a

665
great many cases. Let me point out to your Lordships what will be the effect of the words as they stand at present. Under this Schedule the Department of Agriculture are given power, in the event of the required proportion of land on any holding not being tilled, to exact a fine net exceeding £5 per acre. This may mean a fine of thousands of pounds, and it is arbitrarily decided that the person who is to pay this is the person who, in the event of a change of owners, was occupier at the end of the year. It seems to me that this cannot be defended on any grounds. I should like to point out to your Lordships two or three cases in which serious hardship would result. Take, for instance, a tenant for life who has been told he has to till a portion of his holding, and who dies before the end of the year. A remainder man succeeds. Is it fair that this remainder man should be called upon to pay a fine, which may amount to thousands of pounds, in a matter with which he has had nothing to do? He has not been in any way responsible for the neglect of the Order, and surely in such a case it ought to be the estate of the deceased tenant for life that should pay, and not the remainder man.
Let me take another case—that of a bankruptcy. In such a case I do not quite know who would be called upon to pay—whether the creditors' assignee or the official assignee—and there would be the question of priority of debts. It seems to me extremely hard that they should be called upon to pay. Again, there is the case of rival claimants to a farm. The claim may be decided before the end of the year in favour of one particular man who may not have been the man called upon to till. He would succeed to the farm with this heavy liability upon him. The same would be the case if a receiver were appointed by the Courts. He would be called upon to pay. Another instance is that of the minor who succeeds. I do not know how money is to be recovered from him, because there is no power under the Bill to charge it on the farm. What I propose as a remedy for this is—if this special clause be omitted—the clause which comes lower down in the Third Schedule, Clause 5:
" Any sum payable to the Department under this Schedule shall, irrespective of the amount, be recoverable by the Department by ordinary civil bill before the County Court Judge of any county in which the holding or any part thereof is situated, and the decision of the County Court Judge shall be final."
666
I do not say that this really satisfies me because I should have liked to see an appeal to the Judge of Assize, but I think it more likely that the Government may accede to my Amendment if I make it as simple as possible.
I see from the debate that occurred in another place that some were afraid to do anything which would encourage litigation, but you cannot do away with litigation. Supposing the clause stands as it is, if the Department exceeds its powers in any particular an appeal may be made to the superior Courts, and they are very exacting in seeing that these irregular tribunals shall not exceed the powers conferred upon them by Act of Parliament. I may remind your Lordships of the Glamorgan case, where Regulations were made as to the payment of Church school teachers. That was tried in the superior Courts and carried to your Lordships' House, and a decision was given upon it. There have also been decisions in the case of the Irish Land Courts. When they were first constituted they exceeded their powers in some instances, and there are well known cases which came before this House. I really do not think I am asking too much if I suggest that the Government might accept my Amendment, particularly when the only tribunal which I ask for to decide the question is such a simple and inexpensive one as that of the County Court. I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to tell me that the Government are prepared to accede to this very reasonable request for what I think is justice for the man who may be occupier at the end of a year.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, lines 13 to 15, leave out (" Where there has been a change of occupiers during the year, the amount shall be payable by the person who was occupier at the end of the year ").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I admit that the case put by noble friend—that of successive occupiers—is extremely difficult, and must give rise to precisely that king of intricacy to which he has referred; but I am advised that on the whole the provision as it is in this Schedule is the simplest procedure. If my noble friend will follow what occurs he will see that this is so. A change of occupiers, as he pointed out, may arise from several causes. The

667
Government suggest that the last occupier should be the person to be approached by the authorities. That clearly is right in the case of a sale. The purchaser of the property would become liable for the default of his predecessor. To that, of course, my noble friend takes no objection, because in buying the property the new landlord would naturally take into account the obligations incumbent upon that property and accordingly would pay a smaller sum for it. Then there is the case of a gift. If the property is handed over as a gift to a man and that property carries liability to tillage, and therefore to fine, the donee clearly in that case should not be in a better position than the occupier from whom he derives it. That excludes the gift, I think, from any grievance. The same principle obviously applies in a case of bankruptcy. The man who succeeds to the bankrupt has no right whatever to be placed in a better position than the bankrupt to whose property he has succeeded. My noble friend has omitted to recall that on the first line of the page the words "reasonable excuse" occur. Certain of the points he has mentioned manifestly would come within the category covered by those words. In the case of a death, the death may occur at the time of the year at which it is impossible for the successor in title to carry out the tillage operations. That, of course, would be a reasonable excuse for noncompliance. If the owner or tiller of the land dies just before the seeding season begins, and it is impossible to carry on the farm with good husbandry, nobody could claim that a reasonable excuse for noncompliance with the Act had not arisen, and the authority would be bound to take that into account in assessing any penalty, if penalty did lie. On the whole, therefore, difficult as it is, it is fair and reasonable that the last in occupation should be the person liable for the penalty. My noble friend proposes that the liability shall be apportioned between successive occupiers. That, of course, would be a most difficult, most cumbrous, and most complicated procedure. Everything would turn upon the time of the year in which the succession took place.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon for interrupting him. I did not make any proposition. My suggestion was that the County Court Judge should decide how the cost must be borne.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes; he would have to apportion between all these different persons, and in order to do that he would have to make all the successive occupiers during the year into co-defendants including the representatives of any deceased occupier; and in the result the appeal would probably be dismissed with costs in the case of many of the defendants. I readily acknowledge that my noble friend put forward difficulties which doubtless will arise, but I am afraid his remedy would make those difficulties still more acute. I think the words in subsection (3), to which I have referred, will make it clear that unless reasonable cause for failure can be proved the penalty will be imposed. That, I trust, will mitigate to some extent the difficulty which my noble friend has outlined.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: There is one more Amendment of mine which by mistake was not printed to-day, but which the noble Earl knows about. It is on the Amendment of the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal that was inserted yesterday. Last night an Amendment was inserted which certainly, from my point of view, very greatly improved the Schedule, because, instead of making the Department judge, jury, and executioner and also residuary legatee, it set up a tribunal to decide what amount should be paid. But it does not define in any way what that tribunal is to be, and therefore I propose on page 25, line 21, after the word "tribunal," to insert" consisting of a County Court Judge or legal Land Commissioner sitting with one or more lay Land Commissioners as." The provision would then read—
" The Department before making any suck certificate "[that is, as to the amount to be paid] "shall send a draft thereof to the occupier, and if the occupier within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner serves a notice of objection to the draft certificate, any questions raised by the notice as to the making of the certificate or as to the particulars specified in the draft, shall be referred to a tribunal consisting of a County Court Judge or legal Land Commissioner sitting with one or more lay Land Commissioners," etc.
I am very anxious that there should be some definition as to what the tribunal is to be, because I think that merely to state that there is to be a tribunal is, so to

669
speak, a case of "shut your eyes, open your mouth, and trust what God will give you." I am not wedded to the words which I have put down specifying what the tribunal is to be. If the noble Earl would make the range of the words wider so as to meet every case which may arise, I should be very glad to accept any change he may deem desirable; but I do think it is important that before this Bill is passed we should know what are the intentions of the Government as to the tribunal they are going to set up It must be perfectly easy, after the consideration they have given to the matter, to say what is the character of the tribunal for meeting the various cases which may arise. I cannot see that there is any object in delaying the matter and leaving it to be settled in accordance with the Regulations of which we have heard so much and which are often so unsatisfactory. I hope the noble Earl will be able to agree to my Amendment, or, if he cannot accept it as I have put it down, agree to it in some form which he may himself suggest as an alternative.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 21, after (" tribunal "), insert (" consisting of a County Court Judge or legal Land Commissioner sitting with one or more lay Land Commissioners as ").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am afraid I cannot propose a satisfactory alternative to the Amendment of my noble friend. As he has framed it, I must say that it seems unacceptable. With the Bill as it stands it is possible that a County Court Judge or a legal Land Commissioner, with one or more lay Commissioners, will be the tribunal. My noble friend's Amendment would make it impossible for other tribunals to be set up. I do not suppose he has that intention, but that is the effect of his Amendment. There are other alternative tribunals. An obvious one would be a tribunal of agricultural referees. Under my noble friend's Amendment such a tribunal would be impossible.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I am quite ready to accept an Amendment of that sort.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: You cannot put in the Bill a dozen possible tribunals. It would be much better to leave it as it is, allowing the Chief Secretary
670
to appoint any tribunal and not indicating in the Bill the particular kind of tribunal that should be appointed. It would be a pity if the Government were precluded from setting up whatever form of tribunal appeared most suitable. Both the tribunals suggested by my noble friend can be set up, and I have no doubt that the case for setting up such tribunals will be thoroughly considered by those in authority.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: In the circumstances it is evidently not worth while dividing the House. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, on this Motion I feel that I cannot abstain from uttering a few words of protest against the way in which this Bill has been put through your Lordships' House. I have been in this House for a great many years, and I have seen on many occasions Bills hurried to a considerable extent through the House, but never have I seen a Bill so important as this passed so quickly and so hurriedly. I might raise this protest on the ground of the dignity of the House. This procedure really does show a want of respect to the House. But I do not wish to raise, that point. I desire to object on the ground that we have not had sufficient time in which to consider the Bill and the Amendments to it. This Bill, passed in this way, is bound to contain a lot of mistakes and had legislation.
I must say that I think the Government really are to blame for the manner in which this Bill has been rushed through the House. I am sure no one will say that your Lordships have not shown a great deal of patience, a great deal of good temper, and a great deal of good humour in the matter. When the noble Earl the Leader of the House stated the days on which it was proposed to proceed with the Bill, we did not raise any objection. But it did not follow from that that we in the

671
least approved of the small consideration which it was proposed that the Bill should receive. If I may say so, my opinion for what it is worth is that the Government are entirely to blame for not having brought in this Bill sooner. They could have done so quite well. As your Lordships know, there were two Bills—the Representation of the People Bill and this Bill—with either of which it was open to them to proceed. What did they do? They could not tell us which of the two Bills they proposed to pass before the recess, and they proceeded for a considerable time with the Representation of the People Bill. Then, after a while, they changed their minds and pushed forward this Bill. If they had made up their minds at once to proceed with the Com Production Bill it could have been in your Lordships' House in ample time, and your Lordships would have been able to give deliberate consideration to it. As we all know, during the last week or ten days we have been obliged to be constantly at work considering Amendments. There was a question whether some of them could be printed in time, and we had no time to consider what the merits of some of the Amendments were.
I do not desire to make any long statement to your Lordships, but I must record my emphatic protest against the manner in which this very important Bill has been hurried through. I have never known a measure of this importance thrust through this House in this way. As I do not wish further to occupy your Lordships' time, I content myself with this protest—and it is a very emphatic one—against the manner in which this Bill has been conducted. Your Lordships would have been perfectly justified if you had said you would not proceed with the Bill before the recess. There are, of course, reasons why we did not take that course. We recognised that this question of wages was a difficult one, and we swallowed our own feelings, for we had every desire to meet the convenience of the Government, and to do that we went to the extreme in our power. I only desire to add my emphatic protest against the conduct of this Bill.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I hope I may say a word or two in reply to the protest which has been entered by the noble Earl. With one remark in his speech I am in entire agree-
672
ment, and that is the tribute that he paid to the fairness, the good humour, and the conciliatory temper with which this Bill has been discussed on every side in your Lordships' House by noble Lords who did not altogether approve of the Bill, and who sit in every quarter of the House. I have nothing but gratitude to offer to those noble Lords for the manner in which they have conducted these proceedings, but I cannot be expected to agree with the noble Earl in the severe blame which he attached to the Government for their conduct of business.
My noble friend's charge took a double form. In the first place, he was very much discontented with the fact that the Government decided a few weeks ago to give priority to this Bill over the Representation of the People Bill and to secure its passage into law before we adjourned for the autumn recess. I think there was a very good reason why, in the earlier stages, the two Bills should be run concurrently. After all, the question of a new Register depends upon the Reform Bill. We cannot have a General Election, except of course on the old and obsolete Register, until that new Bill is passed into law, and until the steps, as a sequel to it, to create a Register have been taken, It was therefore, as your Lordships will see, very desirable to run these two Bills concurrently in the House of Commons. I remember the occasion, I think about five or six weeks ago, on which the immense importance of getting this Bill passed into law before the autumn recess was taken into consideration by the Cabinet. It was then decided—and I think the decision was right—that of the two Bills this was the more urgent. It was absolutely necessary to get it passed into law before the autumn in order that it might be put into operation in the course of the present year. That decision was no secret. It was announced at the time both in the House of Commons and here. I think the Government have conscientiously and faithfully endeavoured to discharge the obligation into which they then entered. Therefore if any charge is to be made as regards the late hour in the session at which this Bill comes here, it is a charge directed against the adjustment of business in another place. For that I have no responsibility; or, at any rate, I have only a very secondary responsibility.
Now I come to the second point, and by that I am personally touched, and, I

673
may almost add, personally aggrieved, because the noble Earl seems to bring against the Government—I do not think he brings it against myself—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No; not in the least against yourself.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: A charge of having almost unfairly rushed this Bill through your Lordships' House. He used the phrase, "small consideration with which your Lordships have been treated." In another part of his speech he said that this Bill was being "thrust into law." It is a fact, I admit, that this Bill has come here very late in the session. That is the fate of almost all Bills of first-class importance; they do not get through the House of Commons early in the session, and they almost always come to your Lordships' House late. But putting that on one side as an almost inevitable feature, have your Lordships really good ground for complaining of the Government as to the manner in which they have treated you regarding the various stages through which this Bill has gone in your Lordships' House?
Let me recall to your Lordships' minds the facts. You have devoted two days to the Second Reading of this Bill; you have devoted three full days to Committee (because the discussion to-day, although it has been upon Report and upon Third Reading—indeed we are occupied now upon Third Reading—has been practically a discussion in Committee); and had your Lordships wished to have a fourth day, I was perfectly willing to sit to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: With no interval between.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: In the arrangement of those days I have twice deferred to the wish of your Lordships House in postponing the stages of the Bill for two days. Further, I have gone out of my way—I believe this is a very unusual, though I will not say unprecedented, practice—to arrange that those of your Lordships who speak with so mud authority on this question should have an opportunity outside the walls of this House of meeting in conference the representatives of the Government on the matter. Your Lordships kindly took advantage of that.
674
I think if was most useful and most fruitful in results. Again, I have nothing but thanks to offer to those noble Lords who assisted in the conferences for the spirit and the good temper and the courtesy which they displayed. Therefore, I am bound to say that from the date at which this Bill came into your Lordships' House I do not think you have really very much of which to complain.
I cannot help recalling—seeing my noble friend Lord Salisbury sitting opposite me—that when, at an earlier date. I sketched out a time table, from which I have twice departed in the sense of giving greater elasticity, the noble Marquess rose in his place and congratulated me upon the generous line which the Government had taken. I believe he subsequently repented of those phrases, but I prefer the first thoughts of the noble Marquess to the second thoughts. That is my defences against the charges advanced by the noble Earl. Nothing would distress me more than that a noble Lord of his great authority and position should feel himself personally aggrieved.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Not personally aggrieved. What I based my protest on was this. The result is that a Bill becomes law that has not been thoroughly considered, and that there has not been adequate time to consider it in this House.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Of course, my Lords, from one point of view it might be said that a Bill of this kind, so important and so wide in its operations, is not adequately considered in the time which we have given to it. That is a thing that can perfectly fairly be said. On the other hand, I think I may say, in reply, that every opportunity that your Lordships desired or were willing to take has been given to you. If in the conduct of the Bill by this Bench we have shown any lack of consideration for your Lordships, I should be very sorry indeed; but I hardly think that case can be established.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have no charge to bring for a moment against my noble friend for his conduct of the Bill. On the contrary, he has shown great courtesy and great consideration; and the criticism we make is not against him or against his colleagues sitting in this House for their conduct of

675
business. But I am sure he must recognise that the proceedings of the last few days have not been ideal. It is quite true that he was good enough to defer to our wish on more than one occasion in the allotment of the meager days which were at our disposal, and he also was most courteous, both inside this House and outside, in considering what we had to say. But the truth is, a Bill of this complexity, dealing with a subject upon which your Lordships' House is pre-eminently qualified to speak with great authority, ought not to have been carried into law in the way in which this Bill has been—I mean in an ideal state of things. I do not, of course, expect to get to an ideal state of things. There should, however, have been at least a week between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and at least three or four clays between the Committee stage and Report. Then there should have been a full day for the Third Reading. That would have been correct, and we should have been quite sure that everything which the experience and wisdom and knowledge which your Lordships had to contribute to the legislation on this subject would have been displayed. I cannot help reminding my noble friend—he will know it is with the best nature in the world—that he himself saw some reason to criticise the presentation of manuscript Amendments on Report stage earlier this evening. He was quite right. It is very difficult for any legislative Assembly to deal with manuscript Amendments, and all the more so when there are no means of putting them right, if that be necessary, afterwards, because the Third Reading stage has been reduced practically to a nullity. It is not possible for any of us, in such circumstances, to be quite certain that the Bill does not contain any number of holes—very stupid holes—which we should be rather ashamed of when we came to discern them afterwards, though they would have occurred through no fault of our own. That is not an ideal state of things. We do not blame the noble Earl. We know quite well that it is not his fault or the fault of any noble Lords sitting on that Bench; but we have some reason to find fault with the way in which business is arranged in another place. There is no reason, I believe, why this Bill should not have been brought to your Lordships' House weeks ago—no reason except a want of determination on the part of the Government to make up their minds how business in the House of
676
Commons should be arranged. If they could have made up their minds at an earlier stage how business should be arranged, this Bill might have reached us much earlier. It is true this is a complaint which can be made against successive Governments. I can see a smile mantling the face of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne as he hears my observation. I earnestly hope every year that we may turn over a new leaf. I must say that my noble friend opposite has made a great effort; I hope that he will continue to make an effort. I know him to be very powerful and influential in the Government, and I hope he will use his influence with his colleagues in another place so that when, on any future occasion, a Bill of such importance as this, dealing with such a subject, has to be sent here, it will arrive in proper time for your Lordships to deal with it adequately.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, may I now move an Amendment which I was too late to move at a previous stage of the Bill? It is of no importance except to get the Bill right; it involves no question of principle. It is in Clause 12, page 13, line 12, after the words, "Executive Committee," to insert the words "if any." It simply comes to this—the powers of the Board of Agriculture are to be exercised through a body which is to consist, in the first instance, of the Agricultural Executive Committee. In the case of Ireland no such committees exist, or are not universal in Ireland. The clause, as I propose to amend it, will read—
" Provided that the regulations shall provide that the body so constituted shall in the first instance consist of or comprise the persons who immediately before this Part of this Act comes into operation were acting as members of the War Agricultural Executive Committees, if any, constituted tinder the Defence of the Realm Regulations for the counties and county boroughs comprised in the area."
Amendment moved—
Clause 12, page 13, line 12, after (" Executive Committee ") insert (" if any ").—(Viscount Milner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 103.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House when he proposes to take the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Marquess has asked me with regard to the arrangements which would be made for the future, and I hope final, stage of this Bill. Your Lordships' Amendments will be taken in another place on Monday next, and I propose, if it finds favour with your Lordships, that we should meet at 12 o'clock on Tuesday in order to consider what may have happened in the House of Commons, with a view to adjourning our proceedings on that afternoon.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose 12 o'clock is felt to be a more convenient time than the usual hour?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes. I understood that I was consulting the convenience of large numbers of your Lordships' House, who had made arrangements to leave town that afternoon.

MUNITIONS OF WAR BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, for this Bill, to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading, I think the claim can fairly be made that I it is a non-controversial measure. It is the result of long and intricate negotiations which have taken place between the Minister of Munitions and various bodies concerned, and, so far as it goes, it comes before your Lordships this afternoon stamped with the approval of both employers and employed. Originally it had been hoped to postpone the Bill until the autumn, when it could have been brought forward as part of a larger, carefully thought out, and agreed settlement of the various labour questions affecting the Ministry of Munitions. It is, however, obvious, with the very short time at its disposal before Parliament adjourned, that it was impossible for the Minister of Munitions to settle definitely, to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, the whole of the questions that have arisen, many of which
678
are complicated and require considerable time for negotiation. It was therefore decided to concentrate on the more important issues—those which require immediate settlement; and it is obvious, in the present condition and state of affairs, that it would be highly unwise to leave unremedied until Parliament meets again, a couple of months hence, certain hardships and grievances that have been found to impede output and militate against the maximum effort of this country. This Bill, therefore, is an instalment, designed for that purpose.
I have no doubt that those of your Lordships who have studied the Reports of the Commissioners on Industrial Unrest will have noticed the unanimity of their Reports as regards certain causes of this unrest. Among these causes are the leaving certificates, the grave anomalies that exist at the present time in the rate of pay as between skilled and semi-skilled labour, and also, in a possibly lesser degree, the delay which now ensues in the dealing with and settlement of any matters in dispute. These are the principal subjects which are dealt with in this Bill.
I have no doubt that the present system of leaving certificates is perfectly well known, and I will not say much on that point. It was responsible for much of the discontent in the country among the working classes, and I would like to point out one of the main reasons—apart from the loss of liberty; these men have been kept for two years separated from their wives and families—why the system of leaving certificates has been responsible for much of the unrest. The most highly skilled men in a factory working on time rates expect to get a higher rate of pay than the semi-skilled labour in that factory, but as a matter of fact they may well receive less than the semi-skilled man, in the same shop, working on the piece rate system, although the highly skilled man has probably trained the semi-skilled man for his job. However discontented he may be, owing to the existence of the leaving certificate it is impossible for him to leave. The Minister of Munitions has therefore for this and for various other reasons decided to repeal that section of the original Munitions of War Act, 1915—Section 7—which instituted the system of leaving certificates. It is quite true that this Bill does not do this directly. What

679
it does is to provide the machinery for doing this. And the reason is this. If you abolish leaving certificates here and now in this Bill the result may be, and most probably would be, owing to the anomalies in the rates of pay, that there would be a migration of labour, especially of the skilled labour, to the less highly skilled but higher paid work, and this would be disastrous to the output of munitions, because it is, necessarily, the skilled men who are difficult to get and who are irreplaceable. The Minister of Munitions asks for power to give directions as to the rate of wages to be paid to such classes, and, in addition, further safeguards are to be put in to avoid the danger of this migration of labour. There is a clause which requires a week's notice on either side, another prevents a man moving from war work to private work; and these provisions in the present circumstances can only be regarded as eminently reasonable. When the Minister of Munitions is satisfied that the wages difficulty has been satisfactorily met, he has given an undertaking that he will immediately abolish the leaving certificate. This will be in about four or six weeks time; possibly, he hopes, sooner. That is the main object of the Bill.
There are other matters dealt with. One, universally agreed to, is the power to extend awards made between factory employers and trade unions to employers who are not parties to the agreement. This is to ensure unity of action in any particular trade, or in any particular district as the case may be. This clause is considered by all those who are affected by it to be of great importance, as well as the clause which prevents the cutting of piece rates, which has always been a fruitful source of trouble, and in which all employers in this country have not always been entirely blameless. The principle now laid down is that there should be no change except in accordance with the procedure adopted between employers and trade unions or by the direction of the Ministry of Munitions. There are other clauses designed to effect a speeding up of the settlement of disputes. These are the main provisions of this Bill, and I feel sure your Lordships will agree that by the removal of what I may call the legitimate grievances and hardships which have, in a large measure, contributed to industrial unrest and consequent loss of output, we shall gain to a far greater degree the con-
680
fidence and loyal support of the great masses of the working classes of this country, and shall in the end reap a much richer harvest of output, which is as necessary now as it ever has been in the past for the successful prosecution of the war.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Elphintstone.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended,
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee forthwith.—(Lord Elphinstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not hear the Government say anything about their proposal to take this Bill through all its stages to-day.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right in asking the question, and perhaps I should have taken an opportunity of making a statement on the point. I did not anticipate asking your Lordships to do any more than take the Second Reading of the Bill to-day, thinking that we should sit on Monday and take the remaining stages, after suspending Standing Order XXXIX, on that day. I am still willing to take that course if your Lordships wish me to do so. But I am informed that there is no other business on Monday, and I am doubtful whether your Lordships would think it convenient to meet again on that day for the exclusive purpose of passing this Bill. If you think that would be the more proper course I am willing to adopt it, but unless noble Lords object I would propose to take the Bill through its remaining stages this afternoon.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the course which the Leader of the House has proposed could only be justified, as he would be the first to admit, on the ground that this is an emergency measure, and I

681
think it has been made plain to us, by the noble Lord who has so lucidly explained its main provisions, that we really are dealing with a measure which justly can he termed an emergency measure; because in the first instance it is aimed at that industrial unrest the causes of which have been explored recently by a series of Commissions, and which has been a source of unfeigned anxiety to many people in this country. I think it is generally admitted that a great deal of it has been owing to the conditions, rather hurriedly conceived and framed, under which many thousands of our fellow-countrymen have been working during the past three years; that the disquiet which has been engendered by those conditions is only such as may be expected in the circumstances, and the present Minister of Munitions has framed this Bill with the object of removing some of the most important of these causes of disquietude and discontent. I understand also that the Bill is approved both by employers and employed, as well as considered necessary by the Government; and in these circumstances I think your Lordships will be well advised to admit the urgency of the measure and agree to the course proposed.
Clause 1:
LORD ELPHINSTONE: I have to move three small drafting Amendments in Clauses 1 and 8.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, after (" directions ") insert (" with respect to the remuneration of such work ").—(Lord Elphinstone.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, after (" of "), where it first appears, insert (" the rates or prices payable under ").—(Lord Elphinstone.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, after (" of ") insert (" the rates or price, payable under ").—(Lord Elphinstone.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Amendments reported.
Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock, to Tuesday next, twelve o'clock.