Sitting of 24 July 1917

LORD LEVERHULME.
Sir William Hesketh Lever, Baronet, having been created Baron Leverhulme, of Bolton-le-Moors, in the County Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
COMPANIES (PARTICULARS AS TO DIRECTORS) BILL.

  EBBW VALE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
  Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917—Message from the Commons for leave for the Right Honourable The Earl of Derby, K.G., to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House; leave given for his Lordship to attend, if he think fit; and his Lordship consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Watford Order was withdrawn.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Committee to meet on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Ministry of Food—
Raspberries (Jam Manufacturers' Prices) Order, 1917, dated 10th July, 1917;
The 1917 Crop (Restriction) Order, 1917, dated 13th July, 1917:
Trade (Foreign Countries and British Possessions)—Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1916, compared with the four preceding years. Volume I:
Civil Service (Class I Examination)—Report, dated the 20th of June, 1917, of the Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to consider and report upon the scheme of examination for Class I of the Civil Service:
Old Age Pensions—Memorandum as to extending the grant of additional allowance to Old Age Pensioners:
Education (Scotland)—Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, 1916–1917. Appendix IV:
Light Railways Acts, 1896 and 1912—Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled—
The Dearne District Light Railways Order, 1915;
The Derwent Valley Light Railway (Additional Capital) Order, 1915:
Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907—Return giving particulars of cases in which persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 30th June, 1917:
Departmental Committee on the Welfare of the Blind—
Report;
Minutes of Evidence, Appendices and Index:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900—Report of the Inspector under the Acts for the year 1916:
Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889—
Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University of Aberdeen under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, for the year 1915–1916;
University Court Ordinance, No. 59 (Glasgow, No. 18) (Foundation of the Chair of William Jacks—Modern Languages):
Colonial Probates Act, 1892—Order in Council, dated 17th July, 1917, applying the above-named Act to St. Lucia:
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—Orders in Council, dated 17th July, 1917, approving memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to the establishment—

1. Of the Rating of Chief Sailmaker;

2. Of Petty Officer (Special Service) and Stoker Petty Officer (Special Service):

Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Town Council of Bootle and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting a certain class of shops within the Borough:
Light Railways Acts, 1896 and 1912—Report of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade up to 31st December, 1916, and of the Proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LAND DRAINAGE (EWERBY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LAND DRAINAGE (SWAFFHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a to-morrow.
LAND DRAINAGE (WISTOW) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a to-morrow.

PARKER'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Prohibition of marriage of offending parties.
7. It shall not be lawful for the said James Matthew Marmaduke Parker to intermarry with the said Lil King.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I move the omission of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received to-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALLOTMENTS AND LAND CULTIVATION) (IRELAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I ask your assent to the Second Reading of this Bill, which reaches us as an agreed measure from another place, and the object of which is to meet a well-recognised requirement. It authorises the provision of allotments and of agricultural requisites by urban councils in Ireland. Those urban councils have not at present the powers in regard to this matter possessed by English urban councils, and this Bill proposes to vest them with these powers for the duration of the war. Already considerable progress has been made in providing allotments, and the Bill sets out in a form which is familiar to those who have studied the English side of allotments the ordinary procedure for supplying manures, seeds, and agricultural implements by the Irish councils to the allotment holders; for meeting the expenses, and for preventing losses on the part of the councils. It specifies the manner in which the price of articles supplied by a council is to be repaid, and contains the ordinary clause allowing necessary supplemental and consequential provisions to be included in an Order. I do not think the Bill is likely to provoke much controversy. Its need, as I say, is recognised; and it would appear that the work which can be carried out under this Bill will be as satisfactory in Ireland as it has proved in similar circumstances in this country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

FINANCE BILL.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Elphinstone.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I have been asked to draw attention to an omission in another place in connection with Clause 14, which was there inserted in the Bill to deal with accumulated funds that are eventually recoverable by a minor on coming of age, or under settlement by a person when he or she may got married. It appears to have been the custom in nearly all cases dealing with over assessment or where money is recoverable—in accordance with decisions in your Lordships' House sitting as the Final Court of Appeal—for interest to be paid on the sums recovered. In this particular clause no allusion whatever is made to the recovery of interest, and it is obviously just to the beneficiary that where funds have been held over by the Treasury and are then recoverable, interest should be payable. I know that it is unusual in your Lordships' House to introduce Amendments in connection with Money Clauses but I think it is desirable that the matter should be put right, if possible, either here or in another place. I therefore draw your Lordships' attention to it, and hope the Government will meet what was obviously an omission in another place.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, in the unfortunate absence of Lord Hylton, who is in charge of this Bill, I suggest that the best plan would be to postpone the Third Reading until to-morrow, and in the meantime it will be possible to bring what the noble Lord has said to the attention of those concerned. Perhaps the noble Lord will put an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the point.
LORD GAINFORD: I do not think it is for me to table an Amendment to a Money Clause in a Finance Bill, but I thought it my duty to draw attention in your Lordships' House to what was an obvious omission in another place.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is, of course, not possible to amend a Money Bill in this House. But my noble friend, Lord Elphinstone, out of courtesy to the noble Lord, suggested that if he would formulate his case in the form of an Amendment my noble friend would communicate with the Treasury and see whether it was possible to meet him extra-legislatively.
LORD GAINFORD: I shall be glad to communicate behind the scenes, and I accept the noble Lord's suggestion that the Third Reading of the Bill should be put off until to-morrow for that purpose.
Third Reading put off accordingly until to-morrow.

THE FORAGE ORDER.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the Order of the War Council, dated May 9, 1917, prohibiting the use of wheat-straw for any purpose other than the feeding of live stock and thatching, and of oat-straw, except for the feeding of live stock, also except under licence from the purchasing officer; whether it is the fact that this Order has been cancelled entirely in Scotland, and, if so, will he take steps immediately to cancel it also entirely in England; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope it may be unnecessary for me to say more than a few words upon this Question, partly because the noble Earl the Secretary of State for War has been courteous enough to write to me explaining that a mistake was made in the answer which he gave to me on this subject on a former occasion, and also because I understand that the Order in question has been cancelled in Scotland. Whether that is so or not, I sincerely hope it will be cancelled in England, for reasons which I shall give before I sit down. This particular Order, called the Forage Order, is an instance of a great number of Orders which are being constantly issued by various Departments of the Government other than the Board of Agriculture, and which give rise in consequence to the greatest possible confusion. They are often issued, so far as I am able to form an opinion from their nature, by people who have, to say the least, an extremely limited acquaintance with the necessary requirements of the agricultural industry if it is to be made successful, especially at a time when we are called upon day after day by the Government in the most strenuous terms to increase as largely as possible the production of food, and especially of corn.
In these circumstances I will briefly remind your Lordships of what happened
8
on the last occasion. On June 20 the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, called attention to the Army Council Order of May 9, 1917, which prohibited the use of wheat-straw or oat-straw in Great Britain for any purpose, except the feeding of live stock or thatching, without a licence from the district purchasing officer, and he also represented the hardship of farmers being expected to know and obey Orders issued by several different Government authorities. The noble Earl, as I thought, made out a very good case for the suggestions which he submitted to the Secretary of State. Indeed, in my humble judgment, it was not only a good case, but one which seemed to me to be overwhelming. In the course of his reply the Secretary of State for War made it clear that three different Departments of the Government had been concerned in this matter—the Board of Agriculture, the Forage Committee, and the Food Production Department. As it did not seem to me to be quite clear what the position was, I then asked. Did the Board of Agriculture concur in the decision of the two other Departments? and I added that I had been told that it had happened over and over again that this Department had not always concurred in these Orders. The Secretary of State for War replied—
" I can inform the noble Viscount at once. It was in thorough agreement of all three, and it was at the request of the Board of Agriculture that we issued the Order."
To this I replied—
" Then I think we shall have something to say to the Board of Agriculture if that be the case."
Curiously enough, not many days afterwards I was walking through the Lobby to the other House when a gentleman put his hand on my shoulder. It happened to be the President of the Board of Agriculture, so I related to him what had occurred, and he gave an absolutely unqualified contradiction to the statement made by the noble Earl. This is now confirmed to a certain extent by Lord Derby's letter to myself, and although I do not think it necessary to read this letter—that is, unless the noble Earl wishes me to do so—
The EARL OF DERBY: I will explain the matter in the terms of the letter.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Perhaps it would be best to leave it so. The objections to this Order are obvious. We are told day

9
after day, as I have already mentioned, to devote all our agricultural energies to growing large quantities of additional corn. How on earth are we to grow that corn if we are not to be allowed to use the straw which is already grown to be made into manure for the purpose of growing corn? All control over our own straw is taken away from us by the Board of Agriculture, As I am on this subject, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word with regard to the rumour which I have heard, and which I know to be true, that there is now a scheme on hand in another Government Department—the Food Production Department—under which vast numbers of our English cattle, beginning from a date not far hence, are to be killed. Again I ask, How are we to grow corn if we have not the cattle to tread down the straw and to make it into manure? This is absolutely necessary if we are to grow any crops worth growing. The answer is obvious. It cannot be trodden down. And if this is the policy which is going to be pursued by other Departments of the Government, sometimes in direct contradiction to the views and wishes of the one Department which does know its business with regard to agriculture and ought to be consulted, how can anybody suppose that we shall be able to carry out the proposals which have been pressed upon us over and over again by the Prime Minister as absolutely vital to the safety of the country at the present time? I conclude with an expression of my most earnest hope that the Secretary of State will agree to cancel this Order with the least possible delay.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, I will first give the answer to the Question as it appears on the Paper, and then say a few words on the subject which the noble Viscount has raised with regard to my reply to him on a previous occasion. The Army Council Order of May 9 has been cancelled not only in Scotland but also in England (except as regards oat-straw in the last named country) by paragraph 2 of the Army Council Order of July 17. The Order was never in force in Ireland. It was introduced originally to ensure the conservation of all forage supplies capable of consumption, as at the time there was no certainty that the hay crop would be adequate to meet all requirements. Since then the outlook has improved, and it has therefore been possible to cancel all restrictions
10
on wheat-straw. It is still necessary to restrict the use of oat-straw in England and Wales to consuming purposes, but in Scotland this also may be used for any purpose. This distinction is largely due to the fact that whereas the release of wheat-straw in England meets the needs for bedding and kindred purposes, there is not sufficient in Scotland. Moreover, in the latter country large quantities of oat-straw are available in excess of those that can be consumed. The cost and difficulties of transporting such straw to the South of England would be prohibitive.
The question of uncertainty with reference to forage is always in front of those in the War Office who are responsible for the foraging of the horses abroad. I can assure the noble Viscount that we have had a most anxious time, and we have lost several ships which were conveying forage to various theatres of war. We are obliged to take such steps as we think necessary—I am sure the noble Viscount will agree with me in this—so that the horses in the theatres of war shall be assured of the proper amount of forage. When uncertainty exists we have to do things as a provision against something which may not happen. We are only too glad if it does not happen, but we must make provision in case it does. With regard to my answer on the last occasion, I stand in a white sheet before the noble Viscount. I admit that I made a mistake when I said that we had issued this Order at the request of the Board of Agriculture. But I think I am still justified in what I said as to its being issued with the consent of that Board. The Forage Committee is not a War Office Committee in the sense that it is composed of War Office officials. It is a Joint Committee, and if I read the names of its members the noble Viscount will see that it is a fairly representative one. The Committee consists of Mr. H. Trustram Eve; Mr. E. J. Cheney, Chief Agricultural Adviser of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; Colonel H. G. Morgan, the representative of the Supply Branch of the War Office; Sir Robert P. Wright, of Edinburgh; Mr. Hugh Barrio, M.P., of the Manor House, Coleraine, Ireland; Mr. Samuel Kidner, of Bickley Farm, Milverton, Somerset; Mr. John Inns, of Stevenage, Herts; and Mr. Clement C. Smith, of Walton Hall, Felixstowe. These gentlemen form the Committee to advise us as to any action that we should take, and if the representative

11
of the Board of Agriculture attending the Committee does not offer any opposition to the issue of an Order, surely one has the right to assume that the Department he represents agrees to the proposal? I think the noble Viscount will allow that this is most certainly the case. I do not profess to know anything at all about this matter myself. I make no pretence in that direction. I know that the Department requires certain things, and I am guided by the Forage Committee, which is representative, as I hope, of the various farming interests of the country. They give their advice to us and we act on that advice. I submit to the noble Viscount that I am bound to take such action as this Committee, having in view the provision of the large amount of forage we require, may tell me they think necessary.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Are we to understand that all straw, except oat-straw, in England is now free from control and may be used for all purposes?
THE EARL OF DERBY: Yes. The restriction applied only to oat-straw.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As I initiated the discussion in your Lordships' House on this matter on June 20, perhaps you will allow me to say a few words. The noble Earl on that occasion gave to my suggestion that this Order should be withdrawn a very unfavourable reception. He said that—but perhaps I had better not quote what he said—at any rate, he was not at all complimentary. And at the end of his remarks he said that he thought it a pity that because some private individuals were affected the Department should be called in question. So far from any private individuals being affected, the whole of the farmers in Scotland rose as one man against this Order; and the noble Earl, if he peruses the correspondence that has taken place between the Scottish Secretary and I presume this Department, for apparently it is the Forage Committee which really does the work in this matter, he will see that the Scottish Secretary insisted on this Order being withdrawn. Therefore so far as Scotland is concerned, the noble Earl, having given me the unfavourable answer that he did, has been compelled to withdraw the whole of the Order. He has been forced to do the very
12
thing which I asked him to do, and which on that occasion he declined to do.
As to the question of oat-straw in England, I do not know the particular merits. It may be, as the noble Earl has said, that it is necessary to keep oat-straw in limbo in England. But let me point out that the oat-straw of last year has been deteriorating for several months now. It was not bought by the War Office because they did not want it; it has been deteriorating, and in another month or two it will be spoilt, and then the straw of the new crop will want to be put away in its place. And pray how is that to be done? Every word that I said on the former occasion has been justified by the facts, and the Department has been obliged to withdraw this Order, which as I maintain, and can prove if necessary, was issued without full consideration. The noble Earl said that it was issued by the advice of three Departments. I know that on June 13 the official of the Board of Agriculture for England requested the Forage Committee to withdraw the Order at once, and they declined to do so. That was on June 13. I was speaking in this House on the 20th. Yet on that day the noble Earl said that this was done by the consent of all three Departments. He admits now that he made a mistake. I do not think it was the noble Earl's mistake. I think it was the mistake of the Forage Committee, on whose authority he says he acts. I am quite content, so far as Scotland is concerned, because the Order has been revoked, as I suggested it should be; and I hope that with regard to England the noble Earl will, if possible, have regard at all events to the straw which is now in the stack and allow agriculturists to use it before it is utterly spoilt.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I should like to say to the noble Earl, whom I have known for so many years, that I am extremely sorry if my answer to him was discourteous
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not care about that in the least.
THE EARL OF DERBY: As to the statement that we were compelled to withdraw the Order, please believe me that is not the case. Circumstances altered. A position may become much better in a week than it appeared likely to be,

13
especially when you have sinking of ships by submarines. I am sorry if any Order is issued which can he considered in any way detrimental to farmers, but my duty is to see that the horses with the troops abroad are kept properly foraged. That must be my principal duty; and when I am advised that unless I take certain action this will not be the case, I am afraid that, whatever my personal opinion may be, I shall have to take that action.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have no doubt that the House will be willing to agree in the main that all is well that ends well, and that, the Order having been in its principal part withdrawn, it is not necessary to pursue the subject much further; although I gather from what the noble Earl (Lord Camperdown) said that he is not entirely contented about the oat-straw in Scotland—most of which I conceive has been already, or at any rate a great part of it, consumed by the rats—and that in his opinion it would have been an advantage to the farmers it they had known their fate a little earlier. I think the moral of this discussion is this. The noble Earl the Secretary of State has explained that the Forage Committee were compelled to take the course which he described to the House because they were in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not the hay crop would be a failure, and therefore it was necessary to conserve all the forage which might possibly be required for the use of the great number of horses at the different theatres of war. That, I agree, is an exceedingly strong argument. But it must be remembered that the farming community at all times lives under a cloud of uncertainty from its dependence on the seasons, and that so far as that community can be spared the further uncertainty of Government regulations it is desirable to spare it; and if at the time either the noble Earl or the noble Duke next him (the Duke of Marlborough) had explained the position and had said, "This is an Order which we feel compelled to hold more or less in terrorem over the fanners for fear the hay crop should be so light as to be a failure, but if there is an average hay crop we shall not insist upon it and it will not be pressed," I think a great deal of the actual inconvenience and also the Teal alarm which has existed in many parts both in England and Scotland over this Order would have been at any rate mitigated.

AGRICULTURAL ORDERS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government how many Orders having reference to agriculture have been issued since August, 1914; how many of these Orders are now in force, and whether those in force could be published in a collected form for the convenience of agriculturists.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Question which I have to ask has to do with the difficulty which agriculturists experience in knowing what Orders affect them. The noble Duke who is going to reply has no doubt in mind that to many of these Orders heavy penalties are attached, and probably he will agree that every practical means ought to be taken so that those who are subject to these Orders should know what they contain, and that it is unjust to subject a man to penalties when the subject-matter has not been properly called to his notice. Let me, in a few words, explain to your Lordships how the complication irises. These Orders affecting agriculturists may have their origin in one of three sources, and it is important that they should be kept distinct. First, the obligation may arise from the operation of the Defence of the Realm Act itself. But practically, although some obligations arise in that way, they arise more ordinarily in one of two other ways. There may be Orders in Council which affect generally the whole position; then you have the third source, which has caused, I think, a great deal of trouble and confusion—I refer to Departmental Orders. I ask in my Question how many of these Orders are now in force having reference to agriculture. As far as I can understand, there were 214 Orders made by Departments up to June 30 under the Defence of the Realm Act. Beyond that date I have not got the numbers. Although I do not say that all of these apply to agriculture, a considerable number of them do.
Let us see wherein lies the confusion. These Departmental Orders as regards agriculture may come from seven different Departments; they may be inconsistent with one another, and, as we have just heard in the recent discussion, they are apparently not made by the, heads of Departments or responsible persons, but by scattered Committees. If I correctly understood the noble Earl (Lord Derby), his plea was this, that if on the Committee

15
you find a representative of the Board of Agriculture, you may infer that the Board of Agriculture has assented to the particular Order. I suggest that this is a very wide inference, and one that cannot be fairly drawn. There is one suggestion that I should like to make in the interests of agriculturists. It is that all Orders afflicting agriculture should be issued through the Department of Agriculture. That would be a direct way of bringing them to the notice of agriculturists, who would then be able to ascertain at the Board of Agriculture the aggregate of Orders by which their business was affected. Why should not that be done? I think if that system were followed a great improvement would be effected, because agriculturists naturally look to the Board of Agriculture in these matters.
In a great many of these Orders questions rather of policy than of Departmental work arise. I dare say your Lordships are aware that in the Defence of the Realm Act and the General Regulations there is this provision, that Orders made shall affect as little as possible ordinary avocations. We all admit that a business such as agriculture should be interfered with as little as possible. It is obvious that a difference of opinion may arise between a man engaged in the business and the official who is seeking to interfere with him—a naturally different outlook between the two—and having studied these Orders carefully, I think that some of them undoubtedly transgress the general provision which is laid down as the underlying principle in all these Orders, namely, that ordinary business shall be interfered with as little as possible. Of course, at the present time we are not under ordinary legislative authority; we are under the authority of bureaucratic Orders. But I suggest, in connection with a matter of this sort, that as far as possible—I do not know why you should not make a general Regulation to this effect—these Orders might be laid for a few days at any rate on the Tables of the Houses of Parliament in order that Parliament, although it has lost control with regard to legislature, might at least have an opportunity of seeing that these Orders comply with the provision laid down in the Defence of the Realm Regulations. That is a very important principle which ought to be followed. It is really the only security which business people have that their interests, whatever they may be, are not unduly interfered with.
I should like to give a further illustration of the difficulties and misunderstandings which arise from there being no proper publication or intimation of the decisions of these various Departments. I suppose there is no more important question as to the interests of a business than the fixing of prices, particularly maximum prices. This is a question that was raised the other day when the Food Controller was present; and it is perfectly well known that since the Ministry of Food Control was instituted towards the end of last year a large number of Orders has been issued from that Department affecting the question of prices. Now, what is the safeguard provided in the Regulations? This is not a Departmental Order to which I am calling attention, but one of the Defence of the Realm Regulations conferring powers on the Food Controller. It is 2F, and appears on page 5 of the Food Supply Manual revised to May 15. The last part of paragraph (2) runs—
" Such compensation shall be paid for any article or stocks so requisitioned as shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed in manner provided by the Order; but in determining the amount of the compensation the arbitrator shall have regard to the cost of production of the article and to the allowance of a reasonable profit, without necessarily taking into consideration the market price of the article at the time."
That provision is, of course, a most important protection.
I will give an illustration in reference to a matter which arose before your Lordships the other day. Part of the cost of the production of beef is the purchase price of the store cattle, and, as the noble Viscount (Lord Chaplin) pointed out, the store cattle constitute in many cases a large proportion of the capital of the particular farmer. I quite agree that if a particular farmer has paid an exorbitant price, you would not consider that; but you ought in fairness to consider whether there was a high market price when the farmer had to purchase what constitutes the raw material of his industry. I think there can be no answer to a proposition of that kind. But these matters are not brought to the minds of the farmers. There is no proper publication of such a provision as that. I may say that the same provision applies if prices are fixed either by the Admiralty or by any other Department which has the power. They are directed to have regard to the cost of production and to allow a reasonable profit.
I come now to what the Food Controller said the other day, because this very point was raised with regard to store cattle, and in a crucial way. Subsequently in the debate he corrected what he had said in his speech. I want to state the matter fairly, and will give both his statement and the correction. He said—
" I cannot admit the argument that because store cattle have in many instances been bought at high prices the consumer generally throughout the country must continue to pay what I regard as excessive prices for his meat."
Naturally nobody desires the consumer to pay excessive prices. But what you have to consider is, is the price excessive which allows only for the fair cost of production plus a reasonable profit. And if you are to have regard to cost of production you must take into consideration the price at which the raw material was purchased. The Food Controller interjected afterwards that he did not mean that no account would be taken of the excessive prices paid for store cattle. There, again, the word "excessive" is misleading. A high price may be excessive from one point of view, but the point is whether in the matter of business that price had to be paid. If you could not avoid paying it according to the market conditions, then in those circumstances it ought to be taken into consideration as a material factor in dealing with the prices fixed.
I come now to the question how the farmer is to know that the Orders in Council or the Legislature have given him a protection of that kind unless it is duly notified to him. I believe that these Orders and Regulations are published in the London Gazette. Well, ninety-nine farmers out of a hundred have never heard of the Gazette, and the hundredth never sees it; so that so far as publication in the Gazette is concerned, it is utterly valueless. A part of my Question asks of the noble Duke, Why should not the Orders enforced with regard to agriculturists be published in a collective form for their convenience? Surely that is a request which should be favourably considered. I believe that agriculturists desire to do all they conceivably can do to promote production. On the other hand, they ought to have a guarantee that if they are to be proceeded against by means of penalties they should know the course of the procedure taken against them. It is true that a Food Supply Manual has been published, but the effect of such a Manual in connection with agriculture
18
is unfortunate unless you give an exhaustive summary of everything affecting that industry; and if from what is nominally an exhaustive category you omit certain factors, you really mislead the unfortunate farmer. In fact, he is rendered liable to penalties although at the time he had no notion that he was making himself subject to any penalties at all. I therefore hope that the noble Duke will be able to say that the Orders now in force affecting agriculture will be published in a connected form for the convenience and information of agriculturists.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that this matter has been most carefully considered by the Board of Agriculture. A very large number of Orders and Regulations affecting agriculture has been issued during the war, not only by the Board of Agriculture, but by the War Office, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Board of Trade. Many of these Orders were applicable only to the conditions prevailing at the time, and they had been suspended or withdrawn as the situation changed. In view of the labour that, with the present depleted staffs in all the Departments, would be involved in preparing the Returns for which the noble and learned Lord has asked, and the fact that the collection would only be confusing to agriculturists because of this lack of finality, it is hoped that the noble and learned Lord will defer his request until the close of the war.
I am afraid that Lord Parmoor will not think this is a very satisfactory answer. But let me deal with one or two of the points which he raised in the course of his speech. He reminded the House that there had been 214 Orders issued by different Departments up to the present time, that there were seven Departments responsible for issuing these Orders, and he added with some justice that there might be a confusion between Orders so issued. Let me, however, assure the noble and learned Lord of this fact, that it is an unwritten law in the Civil Service that any order issued by a Department which is in any way likely to affect another Department is first of all submitted in the form of a provisional draft to that other Department before it is attempted to be put into its

19
final phraseology. Indeed, only this morning a provisional draft came before me from the Department of the Food Controller dealing with a particular cereal, and it was the duty of the Board of Agriculture to look at that draft and make any comments upon it which they thought it called for. So the noble and learned Lord will see that the Departments do their best to ensure that the Orders are issued with the consent and approval and the collective authority of the different Departments concerned.
Lord Parmoor then went on to discuss the various Joint Committees, and he referred to the work of the Committee with which my noble friend Lord Derby dealt this afternoon—the Forage Committee appointed by the War Office. The noble and learned Lord suggested that as the representatives on these Committees might give a somewhat unwilling consent to many decisions which were arrived at, it might be possible for all Orders affecting agriculture to be issued eventually through the Board of Agriculture. That is a somewhat novel proposal, but it is one which I shall feel it my duty to bring at once to the attention of the President of the Hoard of Agriculture, and I am sure he will give it every consideration. But I am bound to say that I doubt very much whether the Board of Trade the Ministry of Munitions, or perhaps most of all the Food Controller, would be willing to consent to the proposal.
Then it was suggested that these Orders might be laid on the Tables of both Houses before they come into operation. That, again, is a proposal which is novel in its character, but it is one which I can assure the noble and learned Lord will be taken notice of and will receive our consideration. There are, however, many practical objections to such a course. It is obvious that it would cause delay. Very often these Orders have to be issued on the spur of the moment. I presume that it is desired by the noble and learned Lord that the Orders should receive the assent of the House of Lords and the House of Commons before they are finally issued. That might lead to debate, and as a decision is frequently desired by the Executive at short notice it would certainly delay the execution of the Orders if they had to wait until Parliament had agreed to them. Therefore I fear that there would be some difficulty in that respect.
20
Next Lord Parmoor pointed out that the farming community were not aware of the contents of many Orders in Council. I agree. I am prepared to admit that I myself am not familiar, not having had the legal training of the noble and learned Lord, with their exact meaning. He pointed out to the House that under these Orders in Council, when store cattle which had been purchased at a high price were resold at a loss owing the fact that the price of beef had been fixed by the Food Controller, the farming community were entitled to some compensation. That is what I understood the noble and learned Lord to say.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes; but the word "compensation" is used there as the equivalent of "price."
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: That is a legal point on which I confess I should not like to pursue an argument with the noble and learned Lord. I have no doubt that that is a correct interpretation; and, if I may suggest it. I think Lord Parmoor should address those remarks with the full vigour and skill of his eloquence to the noble Lord the Food Controller himself. I can assure the noble and learned Lord however, that all the points to which he has called attention to-night in connection with store cattle and the possible loss to the farmer who had bought, say, in March or April last at very high prices, will be brought forward by the President of the Board of Agriculture with all the force at his command and with all the eloquence at his disposal in discussion with the Food Controller and those who are his advisers. I fear that the noble and learned Lord will be somewhat disappointed at the reply I have given. I fear also that he—and possibly a good many other noble Lords in this House—regards with suspicion and almost dislike the many Orders that are now issued by the different Departments. But I am bound to say, having given the matter every consideration, I do not see how it is possible to get the various things carried out that we wish to see done unless these Orders are issued from time to time. They are issued for the purpose of trying to get from citizens a response to the decisions which are made by various Departments week by week and month by month.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords. I am not in the least surprised to hear from the

21
noble Duke that his answer will probably be most unsatisfactory to the noble and learned Lord. It certainly would be to me. The noble Duke asked the noble and learned Lord to postpone his request until the war is over. When will the war be over? And what use would it be to have this request granted if the war were over? I am going to make one other request, if I may, to the noble Duke. I understand that one of his objections is to publishing the great number of Orders owing to the labour entailed upon his diminished staff. Is he aware how many of these Orders relate to agriculture only? It must be a comparatively small number. I imagine; at least it is to be hoped so. Would it be possible to compile only those Orders relating to agriculture? One of the greatest difficulties of which agriculturists complain to me over and over again by letter and by word of mouth whenever they have the opportunity is this. They say, "We never hear anything about these Orders. We do not know what they are or where they are published." As a matter of fact, I understand that they are published only in the Gazette unless the newspapers choose to repeat them. How can agriculturists get to know about them in those circumstances? Who ever reads the Gazette? I have once or twice had to search through its files to find a particular Order, but the farmers are much too busy to occupy their time with anything of that kind, and I do not think it is an unreasonable request that all the Orders relating to agriculture should be laid on the Table of the House at once, and of those that have been already passed a summary should be made and it should be published at the same time. I hope that the noble Duke will submit this to his chief, and that it will be taken into consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I dare say that the noble Duke may find it difficult to give any more precise answer than he has yet been able to vouchsafe to my noble friends opposite, but I wish to associate myself with them in pressing him very earnestly to represent to his Department the desire which I think is felt in all parts of your Lordships' House that something should be done to give greater and more timely publicity to these multitudinous Orders. You have at least half a dozen Departments issuing Orders on their own account. It is true that there seems to be some system of consultation
22
between them. That is so much to the good. But what we want is more than that. We want the publication of these documents, so that the persons whom they affect may really know what is the law under which they are living and having their being at the present time. I can understand that there might be some difficulty in doing what we sometimes do—I mean, providing that the Order should not be operative until it has lain on the Table of either House of Parliament for a certain length of time. But without going as far as that, it should surely be possible to provide that from time to time at regular intervals there should be made public a collection of these Orders so far as they affect what my noble friend called just now the agricultural community. The matter is one in which they take a great interest, and I hope that my noble friend will do his best to get it put into a more satisfactory shape.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I interpose for only a moment, because I am very familiar with the business of laying Orders on the Table of the House. I understood my noble and learned friend on the other side of the House to propose that when the Orders were made they should be laid on the Table, not that they should remain on the Table for a certain length of time before they came into force. There is, of course, a great distinction between those two things. The practice is common in both cases. There are many instances where Orders are laid upon the Table of the House simply for information and where there is no question of delay involved, as there is, of course, in the other practice of saying that an Order shall not come into operation until it has lain for so many days on the Table of the House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I may say, as a matter of explanation, that I did not intend to suggest that the Order should not become operative for a period of time. I understand the noble Duke's objection to that. What I did mean is what has been referred to by Lord Lansdowne and by Lord Muir Mackenzie—namely, that the Orders should be laid for the purpose of giving information to the House. On the general question, I hope that after consultation with the heads of the Offices something may be done.

INTERNMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the Defence of the Realm Regulations under which British subjects are imprisoned without accusation or trial. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I fear that the Notice I have put on the Paper looks as if it involves rather a larger question than I intend to raise to-night. The point I desire to bring forward is a comparatively small one, but I think it is one of very great importance. Your Lordships know that under one of the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act—I think it is 14 B—British subjects can be imprisoned, though perhaps "interned" is the strictly correct word, without any accusation and without any trial, for an indefinite period. I think there is the qualification that they must be of hostile origin or association, but that qualification. I believe, has been rather whittled away; and in effect the result is that British subjects are liable to indefinite internment without any trial and without knowing what are the charges against them.
I will clear the ground at once by telling your Lordships what I do not propose to deal with or to attack in that law. In the first place, I do not propose for a moment to attack the legality of that Regulation. It has been the subject of judicial decision by your Lordships, I think, and it has been held to be a Regulation which can be legally and properly made. In the second place, I do not propose to attack the expediency or the propriety of such a Regulation being in existence while we are in a state of war. I do not think that Parliament contemplated such a procedure when the Defence of the Realm Act was passed; but, on the other hand, I do not believe that Parliament would deny that power to the Executive if it were now asked for. I confess it appears to me to be a power which in all the circumstances of the case and with the knowledge that we now have of our enemies the Executive might wry properly ask for and be armed with. Therefore I challenge neither the legality of the power nor its existence. But a power of this sort, a power which is autocratic, which might indeed be fairly described as despotic, which might not incorrectly be likened to the lettre de cachet of the Bastille, is a power which everybody will agree requires the utmost care in its exercise. You have to be extremely careful that when you are in possession of so large a power it is not used in such a way as to
24
give rise to distrust, or uneasiness, or any sense of that kind in the general community.
There has been a case recently before the Courts—I think the last proceeding in it was yesterday before the Court of Appeal—the case of a lady named Miss Howsin, who I think I am right in saying has been in fact interned for twenty-two months under this power, and who is a British subject. I make no statement as to whether or not Miss Howsin is a person who is properly subject to suspicion. Her advisers apparently are convinced she is not. One may safely presume that the Home Secretary is convinced that she is, or she would not remain in internment. That is a matter which, while the Home Secretary has these powers, it is impossible for the public to determine. But, as I gather, for that very purpose and for the better reassurance of the public mind there has been established an Advisory Council to advise the Home Secretary on cases of this sort to which persons interned in this manner have a right of appeal. I am not going to suggest that the proceedings of that body should necessarily be hold in public. I can imagine that there may be many cases where it would be inconvenient and awkward that their proceedings should be public. But I am of opinion that it is important that the consideration by this body—I believe the instructions are that they are to give due consideration to these cases—should be a full and a fair one, and that the decision, if not actually a judicial one, at any rate should be a quasi-judicial one.
The noble Viscount who will reply on behalf of the Government will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right in saying that in the case of British subject thus interned there has been a Parliamentary pledge given that they should be acquainted with the nature of the accusation against them although they are not brought to trial. I suppose that procedure is followed. But in the particular case to which I have referred I am informed—and here again I have no knowledge, beyond that of my informant, as to whether the statement is true or not—that the method of consideration of the case by this Advisory Council was that this lady was brought up in custody without being told for what purpose she was being so brought up, that she was suddenly ushered into a

25
room in which she found some eight gentlemen, or some number of that sort, constituting the Advisory Council and was then asked questions. It is obvious that no person who is a prisoner and who is brought up in that way, not even a man still less a woman, could do himself or herself justice; and I think it is only fair to persons in that position that they should know what is likely to take, place, that they should be informed to some extent of the case they have to meet, that they should be provided, if they so desire, with legal assistance, and that the inquiry should be of a quasi-judicial nature. I think if it were possible to provide that—and I believe there are eminent Judges on this Advisory Council—it would go a long way towards removing any uneasiness that may he felt as to the justice of this imprisonment, because although one calls them "internments" they are in fact imprisonments, and it is a serious thing that a British subject should be deprived of his liberty for an indefinite period without trial and without an opportunity of meeting the case against him.
The only suggestion I want to make is that the procedure before this Advisory Council should be somewhat formal, and should give a fair opportunity to the accused persons to meet any case there may be against them—of course, if it is possible to state it. There may be cases, naturally, where that is difficult; and in that event the Home Secretary will have a grave responsibility. But if it is possible to state the case, I consider that there should be a fair opportunity afforded of meeting that case and of the Advisory Council giving the Home Secretary its advice on the case with a full knowledge of the circumstances.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I confess that the opening sentences of the noble Earl's speech relieved me considerably, because his Notice on the Paper covers a very large ground, and I should have felt at a loss had I to follow a noble Lord of his legal acumen on a question of such moment. With regard to the definite point which the noble Earl raised, I think he said that the persons interned were of hostile nationality—
EARL RUSSELL: I said I understood that they had to be of hostile origin or association.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Yes. I think the cases to which he principally refers are those of British subjects and not alien enemies?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes; British subjects.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Persons who have been naturalised?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The procedure is that when the Secretary of State is informed by the competent military authority that a certain person should be interned the necessary steps are taken. Then there is a right of appeal, as the noble Earl pointed out, to what is known as the Advisory Committee, presided over by a Judge. The total personnel of the Advisory Committee is two Judges and four members of the House of Commons. The duty of this Committee is to advise the Secretary of State after full investigation as to the necessity or advisability of interning such person. This course was most fully followed, I am informed, in the particular case mentioned by the noble Earl—that of Miss Howsin. The noble Earl then suggested that the proceedings before this Committee should be even more particularised, if I may use that, term, in a judicial sense. In regard to that, he may rest assured that. I will direct the attention of the Secretary of State to what he has said when Hansard appears. But I may add this. I have the authority of the Secretary of State, for stating that he has from time to time considered these cases, and that he has lately called for a report in all these cases with a view to considering whether in any of them internment may cease.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, from one point of view I think what the noble Viscount has said is most satisfactory. The position has been fairly and frankly stated. I see a noble Lord present (Lord Lambourne) who was for a long time a member of the Advisory Committee. I do not in any way call in question the care with which the Advisory Committee consider these cases. On that Advisory Committee there were two learned Judges, Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Younger. But some of these British subjects—I am dealing

27
only with them—have now been interned for a considerable time, I believe from two to three years.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I think the particular Order dates only from June, 1915.
LORD PARMOOR: Well, for two years. I do not want to exaggerate. But I know of a case of internment which has gone on for more than two years. That is sufficient for my purpose. It might have been right when a case of that kind was originally considered, and as a matter of precaution, that the person should have been interned, the only basis of internment being that there has been association between the particular British subject and the enemy. That is the basis on which the internment is made. But after a period of time the conditions change. Even if in the first instance it might have been wise to intern the British subject, after a period of time has elapsed the notion that he or she could in any way give information of value to the enemy has entirely disappeared. If I understood the noble Viscount aright, he said that the Secretary of State approves the principle that these cases should be reconsidered. Am I right in that?
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: No. What I said was that the Secretary of State has called for a report on all these cases with a view to seeing whether internment might cease.
EARL RUSSELL: From whom?
LORD PARMOOR: We know the enormous mass of work there is on the shoulders of the Home Secretary, and he has great difficulty in looking into these things personally. They are probably dealt with by some subordinate, although no doubt the Secretary of State gives to them all the care he can. What I should like to have gathered from the answer was that these cases would be reconsidered by the Advisory Committee. That is the body by whom you want reconsideration. I recollect that when these matters were originally raised I took a strong view against British subjects being interned without accusation or trial. It was pointed out then that they had the great safeguard afforded by the Advisory Committee. But they want this as a continuing safeguard. We wish to
28
know, as conditions alter, that it is still necessary, in the opinion of the Advisory Committee, that these British subjects against whom no accusation has been made and who have not been tried should remain interned. It is, of course, a very strong matter to keep any British subject in prison like this. It is similar to the old Bastille in France. That system created the French Revolution. If in the public interest a particular individual should still be interned I, for one, would not raise the slightest objection; but let it be thoroughly ascertained and considered whether it is necessary. I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lambourne), who is a new member of the House, will be able to speak to-night. I know the great interest he has taken in the Advisory Committee. I feel strongly that, apart from the special attitude of the Secretary of State, the Advisory Committee ought carefully to reconsider each of these cases after a period of time has elapsed in order to determine whether or not further internment is necessary.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I do not wish to detain you unnecessarily, but I hope it will be felt that any member of your Lordships' House is justified in regarding with a certain godly jealousy the continued exercise of the extraordinary powers which are vested in the Secretary of State; and I would most earnestly press on the noble Viscount who speaks for the Home Office that he should represent to the Home Secretary the character of the anxiety that is felt with respect to the powers vested in him. No one has any doubt that the right hon. gentleman acts with the sincerest desire to do justice to every particular case. Anybody who realises the amount of work which is thrown upon the Home Secretary and the scope of his functions at the present time must extend great commiseration to him in this additional burden.
But I do not think that any one could have perused the reports of the special case to which my noble friend behind me (Lord Russell) referred which appeared in the newspapers last week, and which appeared again this morning, without feeling that there was something wanting in the way in which the powers of the Act have been exercised. The circumstances of the case were gone into by the Lord Chief Justice when it was before the King's Bench, and by Lord Justice Pickford and Lord Justice

29
Scrutton yesterday in the Court of Appeal; out those circumstances all referred to what had happened before September 1, 1915, when Miss Howsin was apprehended and when her incarceration began. And both the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Pickford said of this lady that she was not interned on account of any offence she had committed, but in order to prevent her from possibly committing an offence. Both the high authorities to whom I have referred recognised that Miss Howsin had protested that she had no desire whatever to be involved in anything contrary to the interests of the nation; that she had no hostile feeling on her part whatever the hostile association might be into which she had been betrayed. That is only a matter of suspicion, justifiable if you like, as was admitted by the high persons to whom I have referred, at the time of the internment on September 1, 1915. But now that a year and ten months have passed by, should it be tolerated that this woman, or any other person, should continue to be kept in custody without reconsideration of the question whether the circumstances of suspicion which justified action on September 1, 1915, are still cogent circumstances? My noble and learned friend who has just spoken said that this question ought to be referred—and we cannot be satisfied until it is referred—to the Judges and other persons who constitute the Advisory Committee. The matter should surely be re-inquired into periodically, and re-inquired into with the assistance of the same high personages who inquired into it in the first place.
There is one more circumstance which I must press upon your Lordships' attention. Suppose there is a risk; suppose that this unfortunate lady was something more than injudicious, and that a year and ten months have not purged her of her offence and induced her to be more careful in the future; suppose she is released, as she might be in the new circumstances, by the Home Secretary. What then? She is not likely to get out of the country without its being known; she is not likely to move from place to place without some observation being possible on her movements. And if there is the slightest cause for apprehension of anything happening, or of anything that may possibly lead to betrayal or even to forgetfulness of the interests of the nation, the Home Secretary has still his powers under the Act to apprehend her
30
and to intern her again. Even if the case were more serious than it is suggested to have been, I think that the risk might still be run by the Home Secretary of letting her free again, with the consciousness that he on his part has the power of re-arresting her and re-committing her the moment any suspicion of offence arises. This is a matter which touches the vital principles of our Constitution, and however they may be necessarily suspended in time of war—and I am not going to question the propriety of their suspension—it is surely desirable that we should be on our guard from day to day and from hour to hour lest these great powers are abused. We should take care to see that the actions taken upon them are revised from time to time, and that detention should not be continued one day longer than appears to be necessary in the interests of the State.
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I am, of course, intimately acquainted with the case of Miss Howsin, having sat on the Advisory Committee since its inception. I am sure that your Lordships would not expect that I should enter into the merits or demerits of the case. But with regard to what fell from the noble Lord opposite as to the men or women who have been interned under the Act a year or two years ago, it is always possible, of course, that those people may have ceased to be a danger to the Realm. As I understand it, and I think it is the case, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has power to remit these cases to our Advisory Committee, by whom the whole question is again gone into. I can say this much of the case of Miss Howsin, that it gave us great anxiety, and that we went into it most carefully with the assistance of two learned Judges, Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Younger. On the point raised by the noble Lord opposite of people who might have ceased to be a danger, there is always that possibility; and I take it that I am not wrong in saying that the Home Secretary has, and does exercise, the power of remitting to us cases in which he thinks this might be the case. We then proceed to see whether the person has ceased to be a danger to the Realm, in which case we should probably recommend the Home Secretary that the person might be let out; or, if we thought that the danger had not ceased, we should advise that we saw no reason to change our decision.
LORD PARMOOR: Might I ask the noble Lord one question from his experience of these matters? Have the recommendations of the Advisory Committee always been accepted?
LORD LAMBOURNE: I could not answer that.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: Does the noble Lord know of a case that has been reconsidered?
LORD LAMBOURNE: I should not like to say off-hand.
House adjourned at ten minutes past sis o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past four o'clock.