Sitting of 7 December 1920

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    GERMAN IMMIGRANTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information as to a Report issued by the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in New York relating to the condition of German workers who were induced to emigrate into Russia.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have not seen the Report in question.

    MILITARY OPERATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the military position of the armies of General Balakhovitch and the Hetman Petlura; and what armies are now engaged in military operations against the Soviet Government of Russia?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): I have nothing to add to the Press reports on the subject of the armies of General Balakhovitch and the Hetman Petlura. The majority of these forces now appear to be interned in Polish territory. As regards the last part of the question, so far as my information goes there are now no armies engaged in military operations against the Bolshevist forces.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if it is not a fact that we have an expensive military mission in Poland, for the purpose, among other things, of
    1884
    supplying this House with information, and why it is that we are referred to Press reports in a matter of this very great importance?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have nothing to add to the answer that I have given.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Secretary of State for War accounts for a so-called cancer having been able to defeat all the armies on all fronts?

  PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
  Mr. SUGDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, now that other European countries are prepared to lessen the cost of passports and visas, he has proffered to reduce the cost of the same in this country in the spirit of reciprocity?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not aware that other European countries are yet prepared to reduce the cost of passports or visas. If and when the resolutions passed at the recent Conference in Paris are adopted, a uniform fee will be charged for visas by the various countries concerned.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is there any suggestion that visas will be abolished altogether?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should greatly welcome that myself.

  BRITISH CONSULATE, BERLIN.
  Colonel BURNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is now in a position to state whether all the legal business of the British Consulate in Berlin is passed on to Mr. Albert M. Oppenheimer, who is not personally resident in Berlin, instead of being shared by British practitioners who are permanently located there?
  Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I am informed by the Consul-General that there are now only two firms of English lawyers in Berlin, and that the names of both firms will in future be given to applicants to His Majesty's Consulate-General for the names of legal advisers?
  Colonel C. LOWTHER: Can we not find British consuls or British people who will represent us abroad?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: There is no question of his being a representative of this country.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Does Mr. Oppenheimer call himself a British subject?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: He is not a representative of the Government.
  Colonel LOWTHER: He is a consul?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Oh, no.

  IRELAND.

    MILITARY CASUALTIES.
    Major HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers and other ranks of His Majesty's Army and Air Force and civilians in the employment of the War Office and Air Ministry who are killed or wounded when or service in connection with the present disturbances in Ireland will be treated as regards pension for disability or pension for their dependants, if killed, on the same scale as laid down for those who suffered in the Great War?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As regards members of the Army and Air Force, I have nothing to add at present to the answer given on the 23rd November to the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford East (Captain Loseby). As regards civilians, they are entitled to the same regulated compensation as other civilians injured in the United Kingdom, but the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware that they can also claim compensation under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1919.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary of State for War the names of all regiments which have had present or ex-members murdered or wounded by rebels in Ireland?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The names of the regiments concerned are invariably stated when casualties to the military forces are published in the Press, but no record is kept by the War Office of ex-members of the Army who have been murdered or wounded by the rebels.

    STAR SHELLS, VENTRY HARBOUR.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on the nights of the 12th and 13th November last one of His Majesty's destroyers which was lying at anchor at Ventry Harbour, county Kerry,' opened fire on the adjoining countryside, and that shells from the vessel fell near houses in the villages of Terrivane and Gortadoo and in the glens west of Dingle, shaking the houses in the first-named village and making deep holes in the neighbouring fields; and whether he has any explanation to make on the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative. As to the second part, the facts are as follows: In view of an expected attack on the Royal Irish Constabulary on the nights of November 12th and 13th, one of His Majesty's mine-sweepers fired nine rounds of star shell for the purpose of illuminating the countryside. No live ammunition of any sort was fired, and no other firing took place from any of His Majesty's ships in Irish waters on the dates in question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether there would not be a more economical means of illuminating the neighbourhood than this?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I do not think, in view of the serious nature of the outrages that were being perpetrated, any other device could be thought of for lighting up the countryside.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Was it at Larne the hon. and gallant Gentleman learned that?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I am quite ready to benefit from any experience I have obtained anywhere.

    DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (ARRESTS).
    Mr. DEVLIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is a fact that while the Dublin City Council was sitting on Monday, 5th December, the Lord Mayor presiding, auxiliary police raided the council chamber, suspended the proceedings, and arrested six members: whether this was done as a preliminary to

    1887
    the special meeting of the Dublin Corporation which has been called for to-day to discuss the truce resolution; who was responsible for the raid and arrests; and whether this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the authorities to make peace in Ireland impossible?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): A party of police visited the Dublin City Hall yesterday and arrested six members of the City Council. One of the persons arrested has since been released. The suggestions contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question are, entirely unfounded. The House will no doubt wish to know the records of these men—
    Alderman Michael Staines (T.D.) (M.P.), Captain in 1st Dublin Battalion, Irish Republican Army; so-called "Minister for Trade and Commerce" to "Dail Eirean," previously a tailor. He has been continuously on the run since last February and slept the night previous to his arrest in a hay-shed. Hidden ammunition found in his last permanent address. Known to be a member of the inner circle of the Irish Republican Army headquarters.
    Alderman Joseph Clarke, courier to the I.R.A. Carries letters for Michael Collins, head of the I.R.A. By trade caretaker to 6. Harcourt Street, the Sinn Fein headquarters. Tried to pass himself off as Farrell when arrested in the Council Chamber.
    Councillor Michael Lynch, Captain, I.R.A., attached to General Staff, Dublin Brigade, I.R.A. Was clerk in employ of Gaelic League. A shot gun was found in his office there. Has been on the run. Member of Extremist group.
    Councillor J. Vincent Lawless, Captain, I.R.A., by trade cycle repairer. Hunger striker, released Wormwood Scrubs 20th March. Got 10 years' penal servitude for share of Easter week rebellion. Documents relating to purchase of arms found when his house was raided. Has been long on the run.
    Councillor James Michael Brennan, Captain and Adjutant, 3rd Battalion, Dublin Brigade, I.R.A. Was in rebellion 1916. Alleged to have fired at and wounded sergeant of R.I.C. at Tullamore. Fruiterer and tobacconist by trade.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Who was the man arrested who was released? For what was he arrested?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The member who was arrested and subsequently released was Alderman Lawler.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that, on the eve of the discussion by Dublin Corporation of a truce to end all these horrors, it really tends to the creation of a spirit of peace to arrest these men?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: On that point I am convinced there can be no truce, or successful advocacy of a truce, in Ireland, until the extremist leaders of the Irish Republican Army either surrender or deliver their arms, or are arrested by the forces of the Crown.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Do I understand that that is a declaration of war to the finish against Ireland? Because if you want war, you will get it from more than the Sinn Feiners.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have never said there is any question of war against Ireland, but against this extremist group His Majesty's Government is compelled to make every effort, in order to enable the people of Ireland to secure peace.
    Captain REDMOND: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the views just expressed by the Chief Secretary are his views and also the views of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I should have thought it would have been the view of everyone that to arrest men suspected of murder is not a bar to peace.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any Sinn Feiner has been guilty of any greater offence than threatening to hang the Prime Minister on a lamp-post?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There would be a much greater offence than that, and that would be the hanging of him.

    SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.
    Mr. HOGGE(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conflicting statements which are appearing with reference to the Govern-

    1889
    ment's negotiations with Sinn Fein, he can now see his way to make an authoritative statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the replies given yesterday on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. HOGGE: Do we understand that the Government are willing that the statements now appearing, such as that published in the "Times" this morning from the "Irish Independent," should appear in this great crisis without the country knowing whether the Government really mean business?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We have a considerable amount of faith in the common sense even of the readers of the newspapers, and I should have thought that anyone who read that account would have seen its absurdity on the face of it.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether a reply has been sent to Father O'Flanagan; and, if so, may the House be informed what it is?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; no reply has been sent.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I take it that the account which appears in the "Times" this morning from the "Irish Independent" is not true?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given people outside credit for a certain amount of common sense, as I give it to my hon. Friend.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary have received an increase in their pensions; and, if not, whether, in view of the need of many of these men, he will say what action he proposes to take?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners are eligible for the benefits of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, subject to conditions prescribed by that Act. More than one-third of the cases of Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners eligible for increases have now
    1890
    been dealt with, and the remaining cases are being dealt with as rapidly as possible.

    "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL" (ARRESTS).
    Mr. DEVLIN(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Messrs. Hamilton Edwards and Martin Fitzgerald, proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal," and Mr. P. J. Hooper, editor, were found not guilty on four out of six counts on which they were arraigned before a court-martial in Dublin; whether after the trial, and before the decision was promulgated, they were seized by military forces and carried away in a military lorry to Mountjoy Prison; and whether, in the interests of justice and liberty of the Press, he will take steps to liberate these men?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, but I would point out to the hon. Member that the six charges to which he refers were alternative charges, and that there were only two main charges before the Court, on both of which the defendants were found guilty. I cannot interfere with the decisions of the Courts of Law set up by this Parliament.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the counsel for the defence, accompanied by the Judge-Advocate-General, proceeded to the General Headquarters Staff, and applied that these gentlemen should be released, pending the final decision, and whether that was refused?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no knowledge of that, but, in any event, I cannot interfere with any court in Ireland.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the arrest and imprisonment, after trial by court-martial, and before, promulgation of sentence, of the proprietors and editor of the ' Freeman's Journal.'"
    The pleasure of the House not having: been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not fewer than forty Members having accordingly

    1891
    risen, the. Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight this Evening.

  GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKINGS (DISCHARGES).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the number of discharges that are taking place from the Government undertakings; that 40 men were is charged from Dagenham Dock last week, and that 30 men are under notice to leave this week; if he can state the number that have been discharged from the Woolwich Arsenal since the beginning of September up to Saturday, 4th December; and how many ex-service men have been discharged during that period?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am aware that discharges are taking place from Government undertakings. Dagenham Dock is not under the War Office, but is a Ministry of Munitions depot. The number of men discharged from Woolwich Arsenal from 1st September to 4th December last is 912. No ex-service men have been discharged during this period except for misconduct or in cases where, on becoming redundant in their own departments, they have declined offers of employment in other departments.
  Mr. THORNE: Seeing that so many thousands of men are unemployed in different parts of the country, are the Government doing their level best to make provision for finding men employment, instead of putting them on the stones?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir, a great deal has been done in Woolwich in finding alternative work. If it were not for that I am afraid that the number of discharges would have had to be very much larger. A great deal is being done, and every effort is being made.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    POISON GAS.
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Secretary of State for War whether one of the objects of safeguarding the dye-making industry by the prohibition of imports is the building up of adequate plant in this
    1892
    country to produce poison gas for times of war?
    Mr. KILEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that during the late War practically the entire production of poisonous gas was manufactured by heavy chemical firms of long standing?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Very great assistance in the production of the gases adopted during the earlier stages of the War was rendered by chemical firms of long standing. When it became necessary to provide for the manufacture of the more complex organic compounds developed towards the end of the War, assistance was also obtained from the dye industry; but, in view of the weak position of the latter, then in course of development, the bulk of these compounds had to be made in Government factories, specially erected for the purpose. If there had been in this country a highly organised dye industry, such as was, and is still, possessed by Germany, the plant necessary for the manufacture of these offensive agents would have been available, and production could have been arranged with far less difficulty and loss of time. There is a very intimate connection between the manufacture of dyes and the manufacture of explosives and chemical munitions (which include lethal gases, lachrymators, smoke, etc.), as the plant and technique of the former is admirably suited for the production of the latter, and can in most cases be converted from one purpose to the other with very little difficulty or delay. In any scheme, however, of production of chemical munitions of war, the cooperation of the heavy chemical trade will be essential, especially for the purpose of supplying the necessary raw materials and intermediates. For the purposes of national defence, a chemical industry, highly developed and well organised in all its branches, is an asset of the greatest value.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask whether the production of poison gas in times of war is not the only or the principal object of safeguarding the dye-making industry in this country?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think that that question is not properly addressed to me. I am afraid I am not able to answer it.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Will not the League of Nations do everything in their power to prevent the use of poison gas in war?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer for the League of Nations. It is our duty, I think, to take every reasonable precaution, and, as we understand that other nations are experimenting on the question of poison gases and defence against them, I think it is our duty to do so too.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is Germany allowed to do so?
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Is it one of the objects, in encouraging the dye industry, to produce poison gas in times of war?
    Mr. KILEY: Is it not a fact that, were we in a position to manufacture these gases, we would not have done so, and had no intention of using them in war until we were compelled by other nations; and that, when we did use them, we produced gases of a far more dangerous nature than our enemies were in a position to produce?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think it is well known that this country did not produce poison gas for warfare before the War, and would probably have never entered upon it if it had not been done by other nations. That is probably quite true. It is also true that there is a close relationship between the dye industry and the production of poison gas.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what steps the War Office are taking to develop a germ-producing industry, in view of the fact that their own experts look upon this as a most likely form of organic warfare in the future?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The cultivation of germs, as is well known to the hon. and gallant Member, is practised in many laboratories, but that we shall use them in time of war I do not believe.

    REVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in many of the institutions and clubs for service and ex-service men sedition and revolution is being preached and fomented; are any of these institutions and clubs supported financially
    1894
    from Army or public funds; and, if so, will he cause immediate inquiry to be made?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have no information to show that sedition and revolution are being preached in any institutions or clubs for service men. I believe, however, that in some associations of ex-service men there are some extremists who are active. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. So far as I am aware no grants are made from funds voted by Parliament.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the constant and insidious attempts that are being made by members of republican and revolutionary organisations in this country to undermine the loyalty of the Army; and what steps is he taking to deal with the matter?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir; I am aware of these attempts, and the activities of extremists to undermine the loyalty of the Army are being carefully watched by the military authorities, and the necessary steps are being taken, but it would not be in the public interest to give details.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is not the Soviet Government carrying on seditious propaganda work in this country at the present moment?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer for the Soviet Government's activities, but there are Press reports of them.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the duty of the Government, if they know that certain persons are carrying on pernicious propaganda, to have them arrested and brought to trial?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The question of arrest depends upon whether they have committed any criminal offence, but it is possible to advocate certain views, the advocacy of which is very undesirable, and that is another matter.
    Colonel LOWTHER: If I assure the right hon. Gentleman that propaganda work is taking place, will he take steps to prevent it?
    Mr. THORNE: Including the anti-Socialist gang?

  MOTOR SIDE-CARS (LICENCES).
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any applications have been made for the licensing of motorcycle side-car combinations as taxi-cabs in the Metropolitan Police area; and, if not, whether any such applications could be approved?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): Applications for the licensing of motor side-cars as cabs have been received. As there are serious objections to the grant of such licences, the matter has been referred to a Committee appointed by the Minister of Transport; and pending their Report licences cannot be granted.
  Viscount CURZON: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the applications for these licences for motor-cycle side-car combinations would result in a very much larger number of taxis?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. Member detail some of these serious objections?
  Sir J. BAIRD: I do not think anything would be gained by doing that. The whole of the matter has been referred to a Committee, and is to be reported upon.

  DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Home Secretary whether he has in course of preparation, with a view to introducing into this House, a Daylight Saving Bill; and, if so, has he been apprised of, and is he taking into consideration, the views of representative bodies of the agricultural community in Scotland on the subject?
  Sir J. BAIRD: The answer to both parts of this question is in the affirmative.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the Home Secretary consulting the Secretary for Scotland on this matter?
  Sir J. BAIRD: In his question on the Paper my hon. Friend asked whether representative bodies of the agricultural community in Scotland had been apprised, and I said they had been apprised.
  Major WHELER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the representatives of agriculture in England have been apprised?
  Sir J. BAIRD: That is another question.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that from May to August would be a suitable time from the point of view of the agricultural community?
  Sir J. BAIRD: I will communicate that view to my right hon. Friend.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Home Secretary whether he has in course of preparation, with a view to introducing into this House, a Daylight Saving Bill; and, if so, can he say when the Bill will be introduced?
  Sir J. BAIRD: It is proposed to introduce legislation on this subject next Session.

  OIL PRODUCTION, ENGLAND.
  Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary how much oil has been got from the Hardstoft and other boreholes in England to date; what has been done with the oil so far obtained; has the maximum production in each case been reached; what is the total cost to the country of the work so far carried out; what is the value of the oil so far obtained; what is the value of the daily-production; is it proposed to spend any more money in this connection; and, if so, can any estimate be given of the probable expenditure and return thereon?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have been asked to answer this question. In regard to the progress of the borings and the production at Hardstoft I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire. Out of the sum of £1,000,000 voted by Parliament to be spent under the agreement with Messrs. S. Pearson and Son, Limited, the total expenditure from the inception of the scheme up to end of October, 1920, has been £469,830, of which some £70,000 comes within the present financial year.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is it a fact that the Government are selling all the oil reserves of this country to the petrol trust?
  Mr. HOPE: No, Sir. I have not heard of that.
  Mr. BILLING: They are advertising it on all their vans.
  Viscount CURZON: Are we getting any return for the money that has been laid out?
  Mr. HOPE: My hon. Friend will rind that in my answers.

  MOTOR CARS, POLICE CONTROLS.
  Visount CURZONasked the Home Secretary how many controls in the Metropolitan Police area were instituted for the detection of infringement of the speed limit between a.m. on the 4th December and p.m. on the 6th December, 1920; how many police officers were employed and with what success; how many controls were instituted for the detection of dangerous driving, how many officers were employed, and with what results during the same period; and how many cases of dangerous driving were reported by the police on ordinary or point duty during the same period?
  Sir J. BAIRD: During the week-end a.m. 4th December to p.m. 6th December, no controls were operated to detect cases of excessive speed in the Metropolitan Police District. One control was in operation to detect cases of dangerous driving, etc., two officers being employed, but no cases of this nature were reported. No cases of dangerous driving were reported by police on "ordinary" duty, but three such cases were detected by police on point duty.
  Mr. BILLING: In future will the hon. Member give instructions to the police that traps shall only be placed in dangerous parts of the road, and not in open stretches where no one could possibly be hurt at 25 miles an hour?
  Sir J. BAIRD: The police are exercising their discretion with a view to diminishing accidents. That is the object in view.
  Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that the police are sent out by local councils in
  1898
  order to raise revenue? It is purely for that purpose that traps are put up.
  Sir J. BAIRD: That is a different question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper?

  TAXI-METERS.
  Sir PARK GOFFasked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to have the dial on the taxi-meter in taxi-cabs altered so as to indicate the new fares; and whether he will issue instructions to all drivers to have their taximeters properly illuminated at night and see that this same is adequately carried out?
  Sir J. BAIRD: There are many difficulties, owing to shortage of skilled labour, spare parts, etc., in the way of enforcing a general alteration of taxi-meters. There is a Regulation requiring the taxi-meters to be properly illuminated, and the police have instructions to see that it is obeyed.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the adolescent section of the community is strongly opposed to any further illumination of taxis at night?
  Captain TERRELL: Did the hon. Gentleman say that there was a shortage of labour?
  Sir J. BAIRD: A shortage of skilled labour.

  SCOTLAND.

    TEINDS BILL.
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is intended to carry the Teinds Bill through the remaining stages this Session?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am not in a position at the moment to make any definite statement on this matter.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT (MEDICAL ADVISERS).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Board of Health has issued a circular to insurance committees in Scotland intimating that after 31st December it will be necessary to dispense with the services of their medical advisers, as after that date the work in connection with sanatorium benefit will be performed by the

    1899
    tuberculosis officers of local health authorities, and suggesting that the committees should give formal notice to their medical advisers of the termination of their engagements; is there any precedent for the summary dismissal of public officers on grounds of public policy without any provision for compensation; and will he take steps to secure that with the transference of the work to the local authorities the liability for payment also will be transferred?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, the administrative changes arising out of the cessation of sanatorium benefit will result in the transfer of the supervision of certain duties from insurance committees to local authorities. As the officials of the latter authorities have been acting as medical advisers to insurance committees, there will not be, in substance, any loss of office. I see no reason to doubt that local authorities will give fair consideration to the interests of these officials on the readjustment of their duties.

    TUBERCULOSIS OFFICERS, REMUNERATION.
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Board of Health has issued a circular in which they propose to supersede the system of payment of fees, 5s. per case, to tuberculosis officers for the examination and certification of discharged Navy and Army men, under the Ministry of Pensions, by a system of lump sum payments to local authorities; and whether he will take steps to secure that tuberculosis officers will not be called upon to carry out this difficult and responsible work, out with their statutory duties under local authorities, without adequate remuneration?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not anticipate that any tuberculosis officer will be asked to render services in connection with the pensions of tuberculosis ex-service men without adequate remuneration.

    MAIL SERVICE, ISLAND OF LEWIS.
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General in what year the daily mail ser vice all the year round was first instituted between Stornoway and the main-
    1900
    land; what was the gross revenue from all Post Office services from the Island of Lewis for the year previous; and what was the gross postal revenue from Lewis for the years 1913 and 1919, respectively, calculated on the basis of the present rate of postal and telegraph charges?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): A daily service (Sundays excluded) throughout the year was started in December, 1887. The gross amount of the takings for all kinds of Post Office services from the Post Offices in the Island of Lewis for the years 1886, 1913, and 1919 are not available, nor, I think, would they be relevant to the question at issue. The most useful figures with which I can supply my hon. and gallant Friend are these. In July, 1887, the cost of serving Stornoway and the district dependent upon it was estimated at £2,955 a year, and the revenue from the postal traffic concerned was estimated at £921. The corresponding figures now are roughly estimated at £18,000 and £7,500. In other words, the excess of expenditure in respect of sea conveyance to and from Lewis, and purely postal services within the island, over the revenue from postal traffic, is now about five times as great as it was in 1886.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is not the revenue from this district five times what it was before; and as the contract is in the pool with the rest of the West of Scotland, how can the hon. Gentleman say what is the cost of this service?
    Mr. PEASE: My hon. Friend can hardly expect me to answer that question.
    Dr. MURRAY: It is quite simple.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: As a matter of economy, is this daily mail service required?

  INTERNATIONAL POSTAL CONFERENCE, MADRID.
  Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Postmaster-General whether the Madrid Postal Conference has concluded its labours; what are the recommendations it has made; and whether its Report will be communicated to Parliament before action is taken?
  Mr. PEASE: The Congress has concluded its labours, but there has not yet

  1901
  been time for the British delegates to submit their Report. The Postal Convention as modified by the Congress will be communicated to Parliament in due course, but not necessarily before action is taken.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (SAPPER G. CARTWRIGHT).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether Mrs. Cartwright, widow of Sapper George Cartwright, No. 50592, Royal Engineers, has made application for an alternative pension; whether his Department have declined the application on the ground that one of his previous employers cannot be found; if he is aware that the pre-War wage claimed for £4 10s. is accepted by County Court judges in assessing cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and whether he is prepared to reconsider the application?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): My right hon. Friend is causing further inquiry to be made in the case and will communicate with the hon. Member at an early date.

    WAGES, RECEIPT STAMP.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the men employed at the King's Lancashire Convalescent Centre, Blackpool, are obliged to give a 2d. receipt stamp when their weekly wages exceed £2; and whether, seeing that this practice is causing dissatisfaction, he will take action in the matter?
    Major TRYON: The practice of requiring a formal receipt for wages has been in operation in Government Departments generally for many years. Where the amount of the wages is £2 or more, a 2d. receipt stamp is necessary in accordance with Sections 1 and 101 and the First Schedule of the Stamp Act, 1891, and the Finance Act, 1920. A request for a modification of the existing arrangement has been put forward by the staff side of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service, and is now under consideration.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are we to understand that every employer of labour who pays a weekly wag© of over £2 to men or women is compelled to have a receipt stamp?
    Major TRYON: No, but if a receipt is given, a stamp is necessary.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter with a view to abolishing the receipt stamp?
    Major TRYON: I have said that the matter is being considered.
    Mr. BELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some Government Departments are already dispensing with the necessity of stamps on the payment of salaries?
    Major TRYON: All that matter is being gone into.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether in future the names of the British representatives appointed to attend the meetings of the Assembly of the League of Nations will be submitted to this House for approval?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The British representatives were selected by the Government, but on their appointment their names were communicated to Parliament, and I have no doubt that similar action will be taken in the future.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these representatives would enjoy even greater prestige than they do if Parliament were asked to approve of the appointments? Does he not see that a future Parliament might be more evenly divided and that it might be desirable to have represented the different shades of opinion rather than the transient Government of the day?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I do not see any of these things. The Government is supposed to represent the House of Commons, and to carry with it whatever authority the House of Commons
    possesses.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it even now too late to send out the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) as a delegate?
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of persons in attendance upon the representatives of this country at the meeting of the League of Nations at Geneva; and what is the estimated cost involved?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Acton on the 25th November, of which I will send him a copy.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government consulted the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) or any individual who could claim to speak on behalf of the Board before arriving at their decision to introduce the Liquor Control (Temporary Restrictions) Bill;
  (2) whether the Government consulted the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) before arriving at their decision in favour of an alteration in the Sunday evening hours for the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor?
  Sir J. BAIRD: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. In both cases the Government took all such steps as they thought proper.
  Major KELLEYasked the Prime Minister if he will, in drafting any licensing Bill, consider the advisability of fixing a maximum and a minimum number of hours during which intoxicating liquors may be sold, and will he further consider that the fixing of those hours shall be left in the hands of the local magistrates forming the licensing committees, and who are best able to judge of the needs of their particular districts; is he aware that the people of this country willingly surrendered their rights during the War; is he now willing to restore those rights; and, if it be thought desirable not to return to the pre-war hours of sale of intoxicating
  1904
  liquors, will he dissolve the Liquor Control Board at once and allow Parliament to fix the maximum and minimum hours of sale?
  Sir J. BAIRD: I have been asked to reply to this question. I can add nothing to the Home Secretary's statement last Thursday that the Government have determined that no change will be made until the whole matter is dealt with by legislation.
  Major KELLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very bitter discontent exists in the country because the Liquor Control Board is still controlling the hours during which drink is consumed, and that the same feeling would not exist if Parliament were allowed to use its proper powers and dictate the hours during which drink would be consumed?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be in the interests of economy if we used the knowledge of experts in settling the hours of sale instead of a Parliamentary Committee which would incur the expense of getting opinions in different parts of the country? I ask this in the interests of economy.
  Sir J. BAIRD: I believe that there is a certain amount of discontent. With regard to experts, I believe that there are experts on both sides.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is the discontent from the people or from the trade?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trade made a great deal more money as a result of the Liquor Control Board's exertions than it ever did when there were long hours, and that if the hours were reduced to two per day the trade would make a great deal more money, because there would be far more drinking?
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every workman's club in the land wants to know where it stands and is going to stand on this question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are not entitled to debate this matter on question and answer.
  Captain TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in new of the dropping of the Liquor Control (Temporary Restrictions) Bill, he proposes to replace the late chairman of the Board, Lord

  1905
  D'Abernon; and how long without new licensing proposals the present powers of the Board can continue legally?
  Sir J. BAIRD: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. As regards the first part of the question, the matter is under consideration. As regards the second part, the powers of the Board continue during the continuance of the present War and such period not exceeding 12 months thereafter as may be declared by Order in Council to be necessary in view of conditions connected with the termination of the present War.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that when these restrictions -were introduced the Prime Minister said that these powers were only for the purposes of the War and were limited to the period of the War, and that during the general election he said he recognised the desirability of withdrawing at the earliest possible moment any restrictions imposed on the social habits of the people for the purposes of the War?
  Sir J. BAIRD: I think it quite likely that the Prime Minister did say that, but that was not the only thing he said.
  Colonel GRETTON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to Regulation 1 under the Defence of the Realm Act of 1915, which says that the Board shall consist of a chairman, a secretary and so many members?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Before we form an opinion as to the Prime Minister's statements, are we to look for something he says of a totally different character?
  Sir J. BAIRD: I think that if the hon. Member had studied everything that the Prime Minister said about this matter he would have seen that what he has just referred to does not present a complete picture. With regard to the com-' position of the Board, as I have stated, the question of the appointment of a chairman is under consideration.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Did the Prime Minister include the War in Ireland, which is the only place where there are no liquor restrictions?
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that a permanent official of the Home Office is now acting as chairman?
  Sir J. BAIRD: I do not know who is acting as chairman.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the Central Control Board run by one Government official?
  Sir J. BAIRD: I believe that that is a very false view of the case, which seems to be very unfairly spread, with regard to this one official. The Board consists of 11 members, of whom he is one.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Cannot the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) be made a member.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members should put these supplementary questions on the Paper.

  CHEMICAL WARES.
  Mr. JESSONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that, as a result of the appeal made by the Government in power when the War broke out to the British chemical and scientific glass ware manufacturers to help the country by developing the production of chemical ware, which was then a German monopoly, although practically indispensable to every branch of our trade and industry, the manufacturers responded by sinking over £10,000,000 of capital in the industry and training hundreds of workers, including a large number of disabled men; whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to honour the promise then given to the British chemical ware manufacturers that the industry would be assisted until such time as it was in a position to meet foreign competition, in consideration of their assistance in helping to win the War; whether he is aware that nearly all these newly-established businesses are now practically at the end of their resources and will be compelled to close down and discharge all their employés unless some assistance is immediately forthcoming, and that this is due to the dumping of cheap German chemical ware into this country at prices that make it impossible for the British manufacturers to compete against; if he is aware that the German chemical ware manufacturers have openly stated that they intend to ruin these new British enterprises so as to make this country again dependent upon Germany for chemical ware; that in pre-War days this German monopoly was largely based

  1907
  upon German prison labour, and that there is no guarantee that this class of labour will not again be used to ruin these British enterprises and cause further unemployment in this country if this German monopoly is again allowed to capture the British market; that a deputation recently waited upon the President of the Board of Trade, composed of the manufacturers and workers of this industry, together with five distinguished members of the Institute of Chemists, representatives of the X-ray Manufacturers' Association and the Iron and Steel Makers' Association, to urge upon the Government the necessity of making this country self-supporting in everything relating to chemicals and chemical ware, on the grounds that not only our industries but our very existence as a nation depends upon our control of these things for the future; and what assurance he can give to all those concerned that this matter is receiving the serious consideration of the Government?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I have been asked to reply. The Government are fully alive to the efforts which were made by manufacturers to meet the demands for chemical glassware for war purposes and of the serious position at the present time, to which they are giving earnest consideration. As has been already stated, a Bill dealing with key industries will be introduced early next Session, but the hon. Member will appreciate that it is not possible to discuss its details in advance.
  Mr. JESSON: Can we take it for granted that this important industry will be included in the Bill?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member is inviting me to say in a supplementary what I have declined to say in my main answer.
  Colonel LOWTHER: IS it not a matter of supreme importance that steps should be taken to safeguard these important industries?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My hon. and gallant Friend raised the question yesterday. It would be nothing short of camouflage to introduce a Bill this Session if we could not carry it through.

  NATIONALITY LAW.
  Mr. HOPKINSasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the bitter resentment felt by British subjects resident in foreign countries at the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, which prevents the grandchildren born abroad of British subjects from claiming British nationality; and, in view of the loss to the Empire, both in peace and war, caused by this casting off of British citizens, will he take steps to restore the position which always existed previous to December, 1914?
  Sir J. BAIRD: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. Without accepting as accurate all the statements contained in this question, I am well aware of the difficult points of nationality law with which it deals. The matter has already been referred to a Special Conference appointed by the Imperial War Conference of 1918, with a view to the promotion at a suitable opportunity of remedial legislation in concert with the Governments of other parts of the British Empire.
  Mr. HOPKINS: Will that conference take into serious consideration the fact that every British Chamber of Commerce in South America has repeatedly presented urgent petitions to the Government, in this respect, and if this is not remedied, will the sons of those who came to fight for us be debarred from British nationality?
  Sir J. BAIRD: Those points are all realised. There is no means of dealing with them except in conjunction with the other Governments of the Empire. The points referred to by my hon. Friend will certainly not be lost sight of by the conference.

  EDUCATION ACT, 1918.
  Major WHELERasked the Prime Minister whether he is receiving resolutions passed by local authorities protesting against the heavy tax and rate burdens likely to be placed on the tax and ratepayers by the proposals of The Education Act, 1918, and to ask what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I would

  1909
  refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 1st December to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the -Member for North Portsmouth.
  Major WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities are very much in doubt as to their future obligations?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only say that the subject is now being considered.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities say that the amount they have to pay is a great deal in excess of the estimate which was put before Parliament by the Minister?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of indignation in Scotland, as well as England, especially in the rural parts, against this Act?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to desire to give information rather than to seek it.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.
  Captain TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, before the House adjourns, some accurate résumdé can be made on behalf of the Government of the actual position of national finance, more especially as to the realisation of Budget hopes and expectations?
  Mr. KILEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to give an estimate of the surplus of revenue over expenditure during the current year?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: While it is too early yet to speak with confidence, I do not anticipate any very material variation from the Budget Estimate of a balance of £234,000,000 over expenditure.
  Mr. SUGDEN: Not even on the Excess Profits item?
  Mr. BILLING: Will opportunity be taken in the economy Debate on Thursday to address the House on the position of finance so as to make people wiser, and in the event of the Government not suc-
  1910
  ceeding in obtaining the Vote on that day, may we look to them to go to the country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether I can make anyone wiser by my speech in the Debate, but I will endeavour to give them information.

  BUSINESS TURNOVER TAX, FRANCE.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will have inquiries made as to the working of the tax on business turnover now in force in France with a view to the possibility of its adoption in this country in lieu of Excess Profits Duty?
  Mr. HURDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the exact character of the turnover and profits taxes in force in France; whether he has received information of the successful working of this French system; and will he call for a Report upon it for the information of Parliament?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the permission of my two hon. Friends I will publish the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I will now add only this. The French tax has not been sufficiently long in force to justify any close or special inquiry into its practical administration and full economic and financial effect. That is, I understand, the view of the French Government.
  Mr. BILLING: Has not the Excess Profits Duty been long enough in force to prove its utility? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue it?
  The following is the Answer promised:
  A tax on business turnover was imposed in France with effect from the 1st July last. It is imposed on the turnover of all merchants and manufacturers. The liberal professions, agriculturists, employés, and certain distributive cooperative societies are exempted. The sale of bread, the sale of stamps and Government monopolies, receipts under scales of charges fixed by law, and certain transactions which are otherwise taxed are excluded from the taxable turnover. Exports are exempted, imports are specially taxed. The rate of

  1911
  tax is in general 1·1 per cent., but is raised to 3 per cent, on the receipts of "semi-luxurious" and to 10 per cent, on the receipts of "luxurious" hotels and restaurants, and to 10 per cent, on certain luxuries. Monthly returns of turnover are required from taxpayers. In the ordinary course of their duties the Revenue authorities in this country are keeping themselves acquainted with the text of the law and official instructions issued to the public in connection with the duty. The tax has not, I think, been sufficiently long in force to justify any close inquiry into its practical administration and its full economic and financial effects. The tax on commercial and industrial profits is part of the French Income Tax system. The amount assessable is the profit of the previous year. There is an abatement of three-quarters of the first 1,500 francs of the profit, and half of the next 3,500 francs. The rate of tax is 8 per cent. There is a small additional tax, based on turnover, included in the Income Tax laws. This tax is at a rate rising from ·1 per cent, to ·5 per cent, and is charged only on the excess of the turnover in the year over 1,000,000 francs. The French tax on war profits came to an end as at the 30th June last.

  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the need of further money for funding purposes, he will now permit individual holders of War Savings Certificates to hold 1,000 each instead of 500, as at present?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For the reason given on previous occasions, I am not prepared to raise above 500 the limit that applies to individual holdings of National Savings Certificates.

  MESOPOTAMIA.
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
  "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what money is being spent during the current year in Mesopotamia on roads, railways, canals, and
  1912
  Government buildings; what money does he estimate will be required next year for these undertakings; and how does he propose to recover this capital expenditure?"
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have been asked to postpone this question, which has been on the Paper for three weeks. May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how it is that his Department is not cognisant of the information asked for about the capital expenditure in Mesopotamia?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to address his question to the India Office, which is administering Mesopotamia on behalf of the Government. If he would put the question to the India Office I think he will get the information he desires.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very willing to change the question to the India Office. The last part of the question asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to recover this capital expenditure. Surely that is a question which only he can answer?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At present I am not prepared to put forward any proposals for recovering the capital expenditure. That must depend on future developments and financial conditions in Mesopotamia.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ECONOMY COMMITTEES).
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to publish the Reports of the Committees set up to inquire into economy in public Departments?
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to publish the four Reports submitted by the Committees set up to consider the staffing of Government Departments in time for the Debate in the House which the Government has promised on the question of public expenditure?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Reports of the Committees on the staffing and methods of work of the Ministry of

  1913
  Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Royal Commission on Sugar Supplies will be laid to-day, and will, I hope, be available on Thursday. As regards the Report on the Ministry of Munitions, I received yesterday the following letter from Lord Inverforth:
  "On my return from America on Saturday last, the 4th instant, I saw for the first time the Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. A. M. Samuel, M.P., appointed by yourself to examine into the staffing and methods of work of the Ministry of Munitions.
  I am quite sure that Mr. Samuel and his colleagues did not mean to be unfair, but I submit that it was impossible for them to arrive at an appreciation of the work of the Ministry without hearing evidence from myself, from the Chairman of the Disposal Board and the Chairman of the Establishment Committee.
  On the 13th September I sent a message to the Committee to the effect that I wished to give them every possible assistance and to personally afford them the fullest information. I was not, however, called. Moreover, the Chairman of the Disposal Board, Sir Howard Frank, was never asked to give evidence, neither was Sir John Ferguson (joint general manager of Lloyds Bank), who acts as Chairman of the Establishment Committee of the Ministry, an executive body which meets weekly and reviews the number, functions and salaries of every portion of the staff. In view of the reference to the Committee to consider the staffing of the Ministry, his evidence would have been obviously of the first importance.
  In the similar case of the Raw Materials Department, owing to what appears to me to be a misunderstanding, Sir Arthur Goldfinch, the director of raw materials, did not give evidence before the Committee.
  I therefore feel bound in justice to myself and to my colleagues to ask you to suggest to Mr. Samuel that the Committee should meet again and hear my evidence, as well as that of the gentlemen referred to above, and any others whom it may be necessary to call, to enable them to get a clear view of the work of the Ministry as a whole."
  I at once communicated this letter to the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). He immediately expressed his willingness to re-assemble the Committee and has taken the necessary steps. I desire to express the thanks of His Majesty's Government to him and his colleagues for undertaking this additional labour and to express my regret that owing to unfortunate misunderstandings they were not furnished with all the evidence which they ought to have had.
  Captain TUDOR-REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider the advis-
  1914
  ability of setting up similar economy committees for the War Office and the Admiralty?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been considering that, and I am not prepared to come to a decision at the moment. I was in communication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War on the subject some time ago. He asked for a little time to turn round, amidst his multifarious duties. I shall extend the invitation again shortly.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: When an economy committee is proposed for the Admiralty and the War Office, why should there not be one for every Department?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Departments selected, on the advice of the Finance Committee of the Cabinet, have been the Departments about which we felt the least assurance at the moment.

  BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.
  Mr. KILEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the statement issued by the directors of the British Cellulose Company, Limited, showing a loss on the year's working of £237,000; can he state the names of those who advised him to cancel mortgages and other securities which His Majesty's Government held, for money advanced, and accept in lieu thereof shares to the value of over a million sterling; is he aware that on the strength of His Majesty's Government's investment in this company members of the public applied for shares; and is he prepared to make a special inquiry into the origin and working of this company?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the statement referred to. The hon. Member is aware that the Ministers primarily responsible for the action taken by His Majesty's Government are the Minister of Munitions and myself. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative. An inquiry was made into the formation and financial arrangements of the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company^ Limited, by a Committee composed of Lord Sumner, Lord Inchcape, and Lord Colwyn. Their Report, issued in 1919, was published as Command Paper 300 of that year.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: How much will the right hon. Gentleman accept for the Government's interest?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman will offer me a tender, with security, I will consider it.
  Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have the appointment of, and, as a matter of fact, appoint, two of the directors and pay them a salary? Are the Government not incurring a serious obligation in carrying on a company which is losing so much money? Will not the public, who put their money into this company on the strength of the Government's connection with it, have a distinct grievance against the Government?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think they will; but that seems to be rather a matter for argument.
  Mr. KILEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept responsibility, considering that he appoints the directors?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that the average investor knows that if a company is in any way subject to Government control it is bound to be carried on at a loss?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it may be fairly assumed that it will be carried on at a disadvantage.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is not the depreciation in value in this case infinitesimal as compared with the right hon. Gentleman's own loan issues?

  WAR LOAN INTEREST.
  Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to cancel the payment of interest on war loan on the death of the loan-holder, in the same way that pensions and allowances are cancelled on the death of the recipients?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Such action would be a direct breach of public faith

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  Mr. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the im-
  1916
  portant countries who impose the tax of Excess Profits Duty; and if any of these countries who impose this tax are considering the withdrawal of it?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A tax in some form or other on war or excess profits has been imposed by the following important foreign countries, dominions and colonies: United States of America, France, Italy, Belgium, Japan, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Russia, Bulgaria, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Australia, Canada, Union of South Africa, New Zealand, British India.
  It is understood that in France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Greece, Germany, Austria, Australia, Union of South Africa, New Zealand, British India, either the duty has come to an end or provision has been made for its coming to an end within the next few months. In New Zealand the duty was imposed for one year only and in British India for two years only.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask if any of those countries have displayed any enthusiasm for this tax?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet found any country in which there is any enthusiasm for any tax. I am reminded of the case of a poor citizen of South Africa who said to a financial expert sent out from this country that taxation was contrary to the genius of his people.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the largest amount of Excess Profits Duty due by one firm; and what arrangements are being made to pay this duty to the Government?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The various assessments to Excess Profits Duty made upon a single taxpayer have not been assembled for statistical or other purposes, and the figure desired could not be obtained without a long and laborious investigation.
  Mr. SUGDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the United States Treasury propose to eliminate, or very considerably reduce, excess profits taxation; whether, seeing that the effect of carrying out such proposal will be to put traders in the United Kingdom, who are subject to Excess

  1917
  Profits Duty, at a disadvantage in competing for trade and to enhance unemployment in the United Kingdom, he will say what action he proposes to take with regard to this duty; and whether he is aware that in many instances excess profits take the form of raw materials or stock in trade held at high prices, or of increased machinery or plant, with the result that there is no money available to pay the duty?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe that the initiation of fiscal legislation in the United States is a function of Congress and not of the Treasury. Certain suggestions in regard to the future of the Excess Profits Tax were made by the Treasury in March last, but Congress did not, I understand, take any action thereon before it rose. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on the 1st November last. and as regards the third part I would point out that the provisions of the law authorising payment by instalments where businesses are short of cash resources are liberally administered.

  COMPANIES' RESERVE FUNDS.
  Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce in the next Budget a special capital tax on amounts placed by companies to reserve funds of any description?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask the hon. Member to restrain his wholly legitimate curiosity till the Budget statement is made.

  TREASURY BONDS.
  Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of subscriptions received to date for the first and second issue of Treasury bonds; what is the total of subscriptions received from the Armistice to date for national savings certificates; and what has been the amount of national savings certificates repaid between the same dates?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Up to the 4th instant, approximately £11,960,000 and £2,600,000 had been received in subscriptions to the first and second issues of
  1918
  Treasury Bonds. The latter figure does not include Bonds issued in exchange for five per cent. Exchequer Bonds, 1920. which are estimated to reach a total of £2,500,000. Between the 11th November, 1918, and the 4th instant, £136,030,000 was received into the Exchequer on account of savings certificates, and £51,250,000 was issued from the Exchequer for repayments.

  BRITISH DYES CORPORATION.
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the price of the shares of the British Dyes Corporation quoted on 3rd November, 1919, 1st December, 1919, and 6th December, 1920?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to answer this question. The first official Stock Exchange quotation of the British Dyestuffs Corporation shares was on the 9th March, 1920, when the preferred ordinary shares were quoted at 17s. 6d. (average) and the preference shares at 16s. 6d. (average). On the 6th December both classes of shares were quoted at 12s. 6d. (average).

  WHISKY (CONTROL).
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Minister of Food whether he will now take off the control on the price of whisky; and, if not, whether he will say who will be responsible for this control when his office is abolished at an early date?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR: The removal of maximum prices on whisky is not at present contemplated. The Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act makes due provision for the contingency contemplated by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the reason for control being kept on and the scarcity of whisky due to the enormous exports to America, owing to America having gone dry?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Seeing the enormous increase in drunkenness which has occurred even since some of the slight control we had has been taken away, will they consider very seriously before they release any more whisky?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is a question of control of price, and not of quantity.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    FLOUR.
    Major WATTS MORGANasked the Minister of Food (1) if he will state who the expert inspector of the Wheat Commission is who examined the stocks of flour at the Assembly Hall, Ferndale; will he give the date of his examination, what day was his Report received, and on what grounds did he condemn the building in which the aforesaid flour was stored; if the Report contained any estimate as to the quantity of flour that was destroyed or unfit for human food;
    (2) whether he is aware that on the 23rd November, 1920, in answer to anxious inquiries made, the local food officer stated in a written reply received at Ferndale on 25th November that no traces of rats or maggots were found amongst the flour, and that he had about that date received instructions to dispose of the flour in store; was this done in order to allay the deep feeling created by this wilful waste of the people's food;
    (3) if he can give the name of the miller who was instructed to deal with the flour stored at Ferndale, and state why he was unable to dispose of it; and, as there is no miller or flour mills established within 30 miles of this district, does he now contemplate transporting the flour out of the district, or will he distribute it, in accordance with the practice, amongst the retail tradesmen of the district who have made repeated applications for the same?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The inspector of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies who examined the flour in question is Mr. Sully, and the date of his examination was 8th September, 1920. The inspector did not condemn the building in which the flour was stored, but recommended that the flour Itself should be taken to the mills for re-conditioning. Owing, in the first instance, to the intervention of the coal strike, it was found impossible to remove the flour at once, but, as already stated in previous replies, instructions were given to this effect by the Wheat Commission on the 11th November. This flour is now being removed in accordance
    1920
    with these instructions. The Food Controller is aware of the report of the local food officer referred to, but the instructions given for the re-conditioning of this flour were the outcome of a Report made by the inspector in the course of his duties.
    Major MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly give information to the House with regard to paragraphs 3 and 4 in question No. 79, and as to paragraphs 5 and 6 in question No. 80, and paragraphs 2 and 3 in question No. 81; and will he kindly state the amount of flour that has been destroyed in consequence of the rats and maggots, and how many times they were appealed to to remove the flour before it had been wilfully wasted in this building?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down another question.
    Major MORGAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have already asked six times with regard to this building and the flour wasted and may the House now get the information with regard to the flour destroyed in this unsuitable building?
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience caused to bread consumers and the baking trade by the non-delivery of flour at West Harptree and other parts of the Frome Division of Somerset by reason of the transport dispute at Bristol; whether the dockers' committee have refused to give permits for supplies of flour to West Harptree and other parts which are outside a four-mile radius from Bristol; and whether, in these exceptional circumstances, the Government will institute a motor lorry service for these deliveries?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No shortage of flour in the places named in the question has been reported to the local officers of the Ministry of Food. The situation is being carefully watched, but I understand that the delivery of flour to places outside a four-mile radius to Bristol is not impeded by the strikers provided that the means of transport are supplied by the purchaser.

    CEREALS.
    Mr. SUGDENasked the Minister of Food what steps are being taken to organise Colonial wheat and cereal sup-

    1921
    plies from all parts of the British Dominions to the United Kingdom without discouraging the growth and production of wheat and cereals in this country?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Beyond the fact that the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies in arranging its purchases has naturally regarded with favour any offers of wheat from the Dominions or Colonies, no special steps are taken by the Ministry of Food to organise supplies of cereals from these sources. With regard to the encouragement of the home production of cereals, I would refer the hon. Member to the measure recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, and approved by this House.
    Major WHELERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the sudden fall in the prices of British wheat, barley, and oats; whether he is aware that many farmers are finding great difficulty in selling their wheat to the millers owing to the stocks on hand; that oats have in some districts dropped to 40s. per quarter; and whether, seeing how seriously the employment of labour will be affected, especially on the poor corn lands of this country by this sudden reduction of prices, he can make any statement which will be of help to growers of wheat and oats in this country?
    Colonel GIBBS (for Sir A. Boscawen): I am aware that farmers in some cases are finding a difficulty in selling their wheat to millers owing to the fact that British wheat is not in much demand at the present time. Millers are instructed to pay 95s. per quarter (504 lbs.) for wheat of sound milling quality, but I am informed that much of the wheat that has recently been offered has been of inferior quality, and part of the reported decline in the price of British wheat is attributable to this cause. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Government policy for the encouragement of growers of wheat and oats is contained in the Agriculture Bill, which it is hoped will shortly become law.
    Major WHELER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many farmers a week ago were unable to sell wheat and were told if they did hand it over to millers it
    1922
    would not be used till after Christmas, and does not this show there is no encouragement for the Agriculture Bill, but rather the reverse?
    Colonel GIBBS: Perhaps my hon. Friend will kindly put down that question.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish oats are in great demand at a good price, and that there is a great deal of foreign oats which are not clean like Scottish oats, and which are consigned to people as Scottish oats, and will he take care to see that those who ask for Scottish oatmeal get what they ask for?

  ASYLUMS OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the hard case of Benjamin Exley, an attendant at the North Riding Asylum, aged 71, who will on 31st December be retired on a pension of 28s. per week, whereas had he resigned prior to the 16th August last he would have been entitled, under The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, to a pension of 38s.; and what action, if any, he is prepared to take to remedy this injustice?
  Colonel GIBBS (for Dr. Addison): My attention has not previously been called to this case. I am prepared within the limits of my discretion under the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act to give sympathetic consideration to any application made by the local authority in the case.
  Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in all the asylums throughout the country, there are a large number of men over pension able age who stayed on during the War to assist and for the benefit of the country, and who are, in consequence, outside the provisions of The Increase of Pensions Act, 1920; and why no notice was circulated of the terms of the Act and the Treasury Order making the last date for any benefit under the Act 16th August, 1920, in time for the men to apply for pensions then due?
  Colonel GIBBS: The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, applies only to pensioners in receipt of pensions at the date of the passing of the Act, namely, the 16th

  1923
  August, 1920. My hon. Friend will see that notice of the terms of the Act could not have been circulated before the Act was passed.
  Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, provides for an average of the last 10 years' salary as the basis of calculation for computing pensions as compared with a five years' average in the Poor Law service and the latest salary in the case of the police; that this 10 years' average brings down the pension out of all proportion to present-day conditions, and inflicts great hardship on a most deserving class of public officials; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Colonel GIBBS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the position cannot be altered without legislation.

  PRE-WAR PENSIONS (INCREASE).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if there is any prospect of speeding up the actual payment of the increased pre-War pensions to those now entitled to receive them?
  Sir J. CRAIG: Less than 25 per cent. of the applications received have not been finally dealt with, and of these a considerable proportion consists of cases in which old age and other pensions are involved, necessitating inquiry of other public Departments. Every effort is being made to speed up these payments.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
  Mr. WISEasked the Minister of Labour if he can see his way to exempt bank clerks from the unemployment insurance?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hard)
  1924
  yesterday, of which I will send him a copy.

  MUNITIONS DISPOSAL BOARD.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what was the total expenditure incurred by the Munitions Disposal Board during the six months ended 31st October, 1920; what is the estimated value of the stores still to be disposed of; when the work of the Board will be completed; and whether the Ministry will then come to an end?
  Mr. HOPE: The expenditure of the Disposal Board for seven months from 1st April to 31st October, 1920, including a due proportion of the cost of Ministry of Munitions Departments that are not entirely engaged on disposal work, is, approximately, £3,000,000. This sum is, of course, covered many times over by the receipts brought into the Exchequer by the Board. The stores ultimately to be disposed of have not in all cases been reported, e.g., in Mesopotamia, owing to military operations. The valuation of stocks recently declared surplus by other Departments is now proceeding, but it is not possible to give an estimate as to their value or to state when the work of disposal will be completed.
  Sir F. HALL: If it is impossible to give any estimate as to the surplus stocks they have got in hand, how is it possible to give the figures we have had in the discussion of the Ministry's Vote, such a large amount being surplus?
  Mr. HOPE: Obviously, the value of the surplus can only be determined by the market value when it is sold.
  Sir F. HALL: But if the hon. Gentleman does not know what he has got left, how can he tell the value of it?
  Mr. HOPE: We shall know when it is handed over to us.

  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
  Captain TUDOR-REES(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the proposals contained in the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill have been submitted to the Allies in conformity with Articles C (1) and D of the Resolutions passed at the Economic Conference

  1925
  of the Allies at Paris in June, 1916, and, if so, with what result?
  Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The policy of His Majesty's Government for safeguarding the dye industry in this country was announced in this House on the 15th May, 1918. That policy, which is in conformity with the Paris Resolutions, and to which effect is given in the Bill, has been well-known to our Allies ever since it was first formulated.

  REGISTRAR-GENERAL (SCOTLAND) [SALARY].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such salary as may become payable to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Scotland under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the appointment of that officer (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow. — [Mr. Munro.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Women and Young Persons (Employment in Lead Processes) Bill,

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, with Amendments.

WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT IN LEAD PROCESSES) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]
WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT IN LEAD PROCESSES) BILL.
  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Defence of the Realm Acquisition of Land) Bill [Lords]): Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. James Bell, Captain Fitz-Roy, Captain Hotchkin, Sir Donald Maclean, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray, Lieut.-Colonel Royds, Mr. Spencer, Lieut. Colonel Sir Rhys Williams, and Sir Archibald Williamson.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Briant, Sir Henry Craik, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Gwynne, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Mr. Lorden, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Colonel Lambert Ward, and Mr. Aneurin Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Burdon, Major Cope, Mr. Greer, Major Hills, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Lynn, Brigadier-General Surtees, and Mr. Newbould.

    SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Registrar-General (Scotland) Bill): Major Breese, Sir Arthur Churchman, Mr. George Edwards, Major Sir Bertram Falle, Mr. Robinson Graham, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Mr. Mallaby-Deeley, Mr. Mosley, Lieut.-Colonel Parry, and Mr. Wise.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  4.0 P.M.
  The Bill to which I am about to ask this House to give a Second Reading is very simple in its terms. Its object is to prohibit, except under licence, the import of a certain class of commodities into this country. The class of commodities which is dealt with is that of dyestuffs, and they divide themselves into three species. There is, first, the synthetic organic dyes; secondly, colours and colouring matter; and, thirdly, the intermediates of organic dyes. Synthetic organic dyes is a general term representing in effect the dyes produced from coaltar. They are all compounds of carbon, and, they are synthetic in respect that they are built up in laboratories and factories, as contrasted with those natural dyes which are got by extraction. The House is very well aware that a very great industry has been built up in Germany by the extraction of dyes from coal-tar, and many natural dyes now are entirely out of the market, because of the competition of synthetic dyes, which have been produced by this system. This country has the credit of the original inventor of the system from which all this has sprung, but, unfortunately, we had before the War completely lost the industry to Germany, in which country it had been very greatly developed. Colours and colouring matter are not, very strictly speaking, dyes, but they are produced by the same processes, and the knowledge required for their production is the same as for the production of the ordinary dyes. They are also the result of the dye-making industries, and are covered by the prohibition intended. The intermediates represent what you get half-way between the raw material and the finished dyestuff. These three species of the genus to which I have made reference cover the whole ambit of the field over which this prohibition will operate. I said that the prohibition was only to be exercised under licence. The first
  1948
  the most material question was how this licence was to be granted. The House will see that provision is made for the setting up of a Licensing Committee. It is to be composed of five representatives of dye consumers, three representatives of dye producers, and three neutral members, of whom one shall be chairman. The House will accordingly see that the dye consumers have the largest representation of anybody on the Committee, and the composition of the Committee has been agreed by the great dye consuming interests of this country. The Colour Users' Association, which represents, roughly, 90 per cent. of the whole consumption of dyes in the country, have accepted this plan and is very willing and ready to work it. When I say that the Colour Users' Association has accepted it, I do not mean that every member of that Association has acquiesced in this plan, because the Calico Printers' Association, in point of fact, has never accepted any prohibition of dyestuffs coming into this country at all.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Does that include the merchants?
  Sir R. HORNE: The merchants are not consumers. They are the people by whom the material is distributed, but they are not specifically provided for in this arrangement.
  Sir WILLIAM BARTON: When the right hon. Gentleman says 90 per cent., does he mean 90 per cent, counting heads or 90 per cent. of the consumption?
  Sir R. HORNE: My information is that 90 per cent. of the consumption is represented in the Colour Users' Association. I made special inquiry about that point, and that was the information given to me. I have mentioned the case of the Calico Printers' Association. I should like to say that the Calico Printers' Federation, to which the Calico Printers' Association belong, has declared itself in favour of this scheme, and, while the Calico Printers' Association are undoubtedly a very important firm or company, they, in point of fact, are out of touch, or certainly out of agreement, not only with the large body of consumers of dyes in the country, but also with those who are members of their own Federation. The next point upon which the House will probably like information is as to how this licensing system will work. I

  1949
  have had many interviews with the people who represent the dye consumers in this matter, and I think that I can assure the House that there will be no difficulty with regard to the operation and to the granting of licences. There will be neither delay nor, so far as I can perceive, difficulty in granting these licences. Let us say, for example, that a licence is required for a dye which is not made in this country. It is perfectly obvious that a licence will be granted quite readily for that dye. Supposing it is a dye made in this country, but not made in sufficient quantity, again, the operation of dealing with the licence is obvious and easy. Supposing it is a dye made in this country, but which the consumer complains is not made with the same efficiency as in another country. Then the matter falls to be determined by a Licensing Committee upon which the consumer has the largest representation. I look for two good results. I look for the education of the producer by this method and for a great stimulus being given to those who are making dyes to produce the best dyes that can be made anywhere in the world.
  The next point to which I wish to refer is the question of having a fee in respect of the grant of the licence. After careful consideration we came to the conclusion that there should be no fee for the grant of the licence. That is to say that there will be no fee in the sense of a licence duty, but there will be a fee to pay the administrative expenses, and it is limited to £5 upon any licence. The reasons that have operated in inducing us to set up a system with no licence duty, while good in the case of dyes would not be good—and I wish to say this at once—in the case of almost any other key industry in the country. If you have a system of importation under licence, it is perfectly obvious that you might upon occasion, and upon many occasions, have two people, one in a position of advantage, and the other in a position of prejudice, because of the fact that one man had asked for his commodity at a time when there was sufficient production here, while the other man had made his demand at a time when the home product was at an end and when he had an opportunity of getting a cheaper dye from outside. In that way you would create inequality, and there is no other way of getting over that inequality than by charging an ad
  1950
  valorem duty. The dye industry is so well organised that we are in a position to ensure that there will be an equitable distribution of whatever dyes are imported. It seems to be the position of this industry that you can say for a considerable time in advance what the whole of the consumption will be. You can tell what your own production will be, and therefore you can decide what you are likely to require from overseas. You have an organisation representing practically the whole trade by which there can be rationed to the whole trade, upon principles of equitable distribution, the amount of dyes which you are compelled to import. For these reasons, we have been able in this Bill to operate the licensing system without any recourse to any form of licence duty.
  I do not think that there are any other matters, so far as the Bill is concerned, which require explanation. I only repeat, because it is of the highest moment, that we have succeeded in getting the whole-hearted sympathy and acquiescence of the trade on both sides in the proposals of this measure, and, whatever criticisms may be offered, that is the big point which has to be kept steadily in mind. When I introduced this Bill this week, I thought that I was presenting to the House of Commons a measure upon which there could be no controversy. It seems that I was too sanguine. I had not taken into account the shortness of political memories, or the fragility of Parliamentary consistency, or perhaps even the lure of old battlegrounds and rallying cries.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The consumers are the people who are objecting.
  Sir R. HORNE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken a little too soon upon that matter. Perhaps one felt too much confidence in the recantations which were made in this House under stress of war. During the last few days, in watching the comments of newspapers and the speeches that have been made, I have been irresistibly reminded of an illustration which perhaps is not of sufficient dignity to be used in this House, but which at the same time is perfectly apposite to my point. It was an incident in the life of an American trapper who found himself unarmed and confronted by a bear upon a very narrow pathway. He had not been a religious man, but in

  1951
  the imminence of his end he was moved to prayer, in which he first of all confessed his sins and then said what he would do if only he were let off this time. To his great surprise the bear moved away, whereupon the trapper rapidly said, "Oh, Lord, I take back all I said; the bear has gone." Much of what is being said to-day is being uttered under a feeling very much akin to the feeling of that trapper. The War is over, or, at least, is partly over, and people are for getting the lessons of the War—
  Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Was he an American trapper?
  Sir R. HORNE: —and in a position of perhaps greater security they are returning to the views which they had previously forsaken. I must say that I listened in a state of wonder the other night in the House to some observations which were made in a preliminary discussion upon this matter. Listening to that discussion, you would have supposed that you had here a Government which was determined to set up a trade which had no right to live in this country, and was forcing its produce upon a reluctant body of consumers in the shape of the textile industry. Nothing could be further from the truth than that suggested point of view. The reason we are here to-day discussing this matter at all is that when the War broke out the textile industries in this country were threatened with disaster owing to the fact that they were cut off from what were practically their only supply of dyes. It was the textile industry that came to the Government, and pleaded with the Government to meet their difficulty by setting up and helping this industry in this country. It was under pressure of that kind that the Government first lent money, afterwards assisted a company in which they took up shares, and later, gave a pledge to people who put their money into this industry. And everybody acquiesced at the time.
  I am going to ask the indulgence of the House with regard to this matter. As I have said, people's memories are short, and I desire to give the history of this development and to tell the House, as I am perfectly certain many people have forgotten and some perhaps have never known, what exactly was the position with regard to the dye industry. When the War broke out, we imported into this
  1952
  country something like £2,000,000 worth of dyes per year, and upon that supply depended the textile industry, worth £200,000,000 per year. Of that £2,000,000 worth of dyes we got, roughly, nine-tenths from Germany. Our own supply was infinitesimal. The amount produced in this country was a mere bagatelle in relation to the amount that we required, and much of it was dependent upon the goodwill of the Germans. When the War broke out the position was desperate. You had this great textile industry, employ 1,500,000 people, faced with something like ruin unless these dyes could be got. They went to the Government. It was not a perverse Protectionist Government. It was a Government undiluted—there were no Coalition Members in it—presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and the then President of the Board of Trade was an impeccable economist, according to all Free Trade theory. What did he do and say when approached by this trade at that time? Already, in 1914, the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question in the House, said:
  "The inquiries of the Government have led them to the conclusion that the excessive dependence of this country on a single foreign country for materials of such vital importance to industries in which millions of our workpeople are employed constitutes a permanent danger which can only be remedied by a combined national effort on a scale which requires and justifies an exceptional measure of State encouragement."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1914, col. 760, vol. 68.]
  There is the recognition of the fact that the country which comes to depend for a supply of vital commodities upon outside resources was not likely to be entirely secure. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? He entered into negotiations, and went to various branches of the trade, such as they were. He first of all induced the Government to lend to one particular firm, for the purpose of increasing its factories, the sum of £200,000. That was inadequate to meet the needs of the situation. Thereupon he made arrangements with the dye users of the country to set up a firm, British Dyes, Limited, into which the Government agreed to put £1,700,000, the whole capital of the company aiming at being something over £4,000,000. Arrangements were made by which prices were to a certain extent reviewed

  1953
  by the Board of Trade, and the method of distribution was always subject to the scrutiny of the Board of Trade. Two directors, representing the Government, were put upon the Board. This company did not turn out to be entirely satisfactory. One of the reasons was that it was engaged to a very large extent, at the behest of the Minister of Munitions, in turning out the material required for the manufacture of explosives. Therefore it never really had a chance of getting on to the higher branches of the dye-making trade. All through, our efforts to produce the higher and special grades of dyes were hampered by the necessity of providing for the needs of the country in the War. In the result, the consumers approached the Board of Trade once more, and asked for further help in this matter. A certain amount of dyeing material of a special character was at this time coming from Switzerland, and developments were made during that period and later in the production of British dyes; and but for these and what we were able to got from Switzerland the textile industry of this country could not have carried on.
  Major BARNES: Part of the trade?
  Sir R. HORNE: Certainly. At this stage in 1916 the consumers again approached the Government with this Resolution—and I would like the House, in view of the criticism which has been directed to our efforts in the case of this country to produce dyes, to note the beginning of this Resolution.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: What is the date of that Resolution?
  Sir R. HORNE: June, 1916. I am not perfectly certain as to the actual date of the Resolution, but it was about June, 1916, when this matter was taken notice of by the Board of Trade. I have the actual text of the Resolution.
  Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say from what he is reading?
  Sir R. HORNE: The Memorandum pre pared at this time for the Cabinet. What it says is—
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If the right hon. Gentleman reads an extract from the document, is he liable to publish the whole of the document?
  Sir R. HORNE: I will take very good care after this when I am asked what I am reading from to give the actual Resolution, but if the House desires to see the whole document, it can be produced. The way in which the matter was expressed by the Resolution is this:
  "Resolved: That this Committee of Colour Users, while gratefully appreciating the efforts of the British colour-makers to meet their requirements, is of opinion that far greater progress would have been made had all the resources and knowledge in the United Kingdom been co-ordinated to that end."
  Accordingly they advised that that coordination should take place. The meaning of that was this: Certain outside firms made progress owing to the great demand for dyes, and in particular the firm of Levinstein, who are well known in this trade. They made great progress. The colour users suggested that the best thing to do in order to get increased production was to unite British Dyes with the firm of Levinstein. That ultimately was done.
  Major BARNES: That is the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the use of the word "co-ordination" there means that a definite proposal was put forward, or that the amalgamation of these firms was adumbrated?
  Sir R. HORNE: Yes, I do say so, and that the suggestion of amalgamation came from the colour users. I propose to give my hon. and gallant Friend evidence of that in a moment. It was out of this that there sprang the British Dyestuffs Corporation. When the proposal was put before the colour users of this country they sent a circular round to their trade, in which they said:
  "We are convinced "—
  perhaps this will also convince my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major Barnes)—
  "that the scheme for the amalgamation of British Dyes, Limited, and Levinstein. Limited, is the first but most important and difficult step towards.…"
  Doing what?
  "freeing this country within a reasonable time from dependence on Germany for synthetic dyestuffs, and we strongly urge shareholders to accept it."
  This circular was signed by, I think, every colour users' association in the country. It was signed by the Bradford

  1955
  Dyers' Association, the Bleachers' Association, the Cotton Piece Dyers' Price Association, the Yorkshire Dyers' Federation, the Wallpaper Manufacturers, the Midland Master Hosiery Bleachers', Dyers' and Finishers' Association, etc.
  Major BARNES: Will you give me the date of that circular?
  Sir R. HORNE: 13th August, 1918. Accordingly, out of the event I have de scribed there arose the Bradford Dyers' Association, set up with £1,700,000 Government capital, and a large subscription from the public, the total capital being something between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000. I want to go back for a moment—
  Major HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not wrong in saying the Bradford Dyers' Association? Does he not mean the British Dyes Corporation?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I meant the British Dyes Corporation. I wish to go back for a moment to what had been done by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Asquith) during the period to which I am referring. In the first Coalition Government, Mr. Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, in April, 1916, set up a Committee of the Textile Trades, a very large and important Committee, representing entirely colour users. They investigated this matter with great care. I would just like to remind the House of some of the conclusions at which they arrived. They said this, and it is worth while at this point of time to remember that when they found themselves in difficulties over this matter, instead of merely being content with the old position this large and important committee of colour users said:
  "It will always be a matter for wonder that great and powerful trades like the British textile trades should have allowed themselves to sink into a state of complete dependence upon a foreign country in respect of the supply of materials vital to their industry."
  Is that dissented from to-day? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If it is agreed to, then the whole case for the Bill is made out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
  Mr. HOPKINSON: But may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, does not the whole prosperity of the cotton trade
  1956
  depend upon the raw material which we do not grow?
  Sir R. HORNE: You are compelled, no doubt, where you use raw material which you cannot produce to get it from others, but if you can produce the raw material which you require for a vital industry you ought to do so. Let me finish my quotation:
  "It is a striking instance of the absence of foresight and of co-operation and taking counsel together in matters of common interest, which has bean too frequent in the past in many branches of British industry. At the present time all branches of the trade are fully alive to the necessity of freeing themselves from dependence upon Germany and of establishing and maintaining in this country a dye-making industry capable of supplying the whole of their requirements."
  They go on with their views as to how this is to be done, and this is in effect the Bill which I have introduced. They say this:
  "We understand that it is proposed that the importation of foreign dyes should be prohibited for a term of years except under licences to be ' issued by a Commission or authority to be set up in connection with the whole group of 'key' or 'special' industries.
  Major BARNES: What is that date?
  Sir R. HORNE: The Committee was set up on 27th April, 1916. I am not perfectly certain of the date, of the Report, and I do not want to detain the House on this matter, but the Committee goes on:
  "Without pledging ourselves in advance to the details of such a scheme, we consider it promising in its character and likely to work well."
  That is said by the colour users at the time and in the circumstances, and they urged the prohibition of foreign dyes imports, except under a licence. The alternative appeared to be an increase of duties.
  "It is quite certain the German colour-producers will make a desperate effort after the War to recover their monopoly, and with that object will be prepared to adopt even more ruthless methods than in the past."
  They are doing it.
  "It is known that they have brought about amongst themselves a complete fusion of interests during the War and that they now control a joint capital estimated at £40,000,000. We think it would be fatal "—
  Perhaps this will be interesting to some hon. Members opposite—
  "to expose the nascent British colour industry, no matter what assistance it received

  1957
  from the State by subsidy or otherwise to the overwhelming competition of so powerful a group. In our opinion nothing short of a prohibition of imports except under licence would effectually protect it in the early stages of its development, while the issue of such licences by an independent authority should safeguard the interests of colour-users and of our export trade in general."
  That is a distinct pronouncement which goes on the very lines we have taken in this Bill. That is not all. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in favour of the same principles being established and of the same process. Mr. Runciman had set up a Committee to consider this matter. He, and Mr. McKenna, and the present Minister of Health (Dr. Addison) were members, also the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These were the five that formed the Committee. Here are their recommendations in October, 1916. They reported unanimously:—

  (a) In favour of promoting a fusion of the chief dye manufacturing concerns in the United Kingdom; this measure having become more than ever necessary by reason of the fact that, since the outbreak of War, the German dye manufacturers have united in a single combination.

  (b) In favour of prohibiting the importation of dycstuffs after the War except under licences granted by a Dyes Commission.

  (c) In favour of encouraging the manufacturer of the more difficult dyes during the reconstruction period by special measures (e.g., subsidies, assistance to scientific research, etc.)

  That is the considered judgment of all the people who applied their minds to this matter at a time when it was vital that a solution should be arrived at. It was under these circumstances and under these recommendations that certain speeches were made later in this House. After the Coalition Government was formed under the premiership of the present Prime Minister Sir Albert Stanley was at the Board of Trade, and on the 15th May, 1918, he informed the House what his proposals were, and he did so in this language:
  "There is a further proposal, and that is that, in order to safeguard this particular industry against the efforts which the great German dye-making firms are certain to make after the War to destroy all we have accomplished through the War and to make this industry again subservient to Germany, we will adopt a course which, I believe I am right in saying, was carefully considered by a Cabinet Committee of the last Government, and recommended to and approved by
  1958
  the Government of that day, and which has since been approved by the present Government. It is that importation of all foreign dyestuffs shall be controlled by a system of licences for a period of not less than 10 years after the War."
  That proposal was put before the House. Mr. Runciman was present, and asked a question, but not on this subject. The proposal was acquiesced in by the whole House as the policy of the Government and of the House. It is too late now to say that we can go back upon all that you have done in this matter, and there is one good reason why you cannot go back, and it is that that pledge being given with the acquiescence of the Government, it was put into the prospectus on which people subscribed to the shares of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, and unless you are going to break faith with those who put their money into that concern you must keep that pledge. [An HON. MEMBER: "Pay them back!"] I wonder where is the economist who would tell us now to pay them back. Sir Albert Stanley went to Manchester, and addressed a meeting of the colour users of Manchester on the 14th of June, following the address he gave on the 15th of May in the House of Commons, and he explained the scheme in exactly similar language, with the result that the dye users passed a resolution declaring their
  "full approval of that policy as likely to be the only way of securing the rapid development of the industry in such a manner as to make the United Kingdom sufficiently independent of German supply of dyestuffs after the War, and also declares its approval of an immediate amalgamation of the principal dye manufacturing companies as an essential means of facilitating that policy."
  I have put before the House the documents which make clear the position which the Government and the House of Commons took up and the manner in which they induced the subscribing public to put their money into the British Dye-stuffs Corporation. I put it to the House that we are morally bound by these pledges, and that to-day you have no option but to follow this scheme, unless indeed you are prepared to say that you are going to buy out all the people whose money was put into the British Dyestuffs Corporation, and that you are going to let this great industry go to pieces and allow this country to be once more dependent upon Germany. All through the War the dye consumers were crying aloud that never again would they allow themselves

  1959
  to be put into the position of being dependent upon an outside source for their dyes. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) of what happened in connection with this matter on 2nd August, 1916, in this House. The right hon. Gentleman was then presenting to the House the resolution of the Paris Conference, and I quote his language because it shows the real lesson we learned in the War. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The War has opened our eyes to the full meaning and the manifold implications of the German system of economic penetration, and commercial and financial control of vitally important industries, and to the use to which vantage ground gained by this system can be put in war."
  Once our eyes are opened, I hope we are not going to shut them again as to the effect of German competition on our trade. The right hon. Gentleman further said:
  "We never realised, any of us, until the War broke out how we have allowed ourselves to become dependent with regard to these essential ingredients for the prosecution of some of our most important industries on sources of supply that were not only not within our own control, but that could be absolutely controlled by the enemy."
  And he read the following resolution of the Paris Conference:
  "The Allies decide to take the necessary steps without delay to render themselves independent of the enemy countries in so far as regards the raw materials and manufactured articles essential to the normal development of their economic activities."
  Then in a passage which is of very great imports, nee the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley said:
  "No one who has any imagination can possibly be blind to the fact that this War, with all the enormous upheaval of political, social and industrial conditions which it involves, must in many ways and ought to, if we are a rational and practical people, suggest to us new problems or possibly modifications in the solution of the old ones. I would regard it as deliberate blindness to the teachings of experience if you were to say we had forgotten nothing and had learned nothing from a War like this."
  Some people seem to have learned something, and then to have forgotten it again very rapidly. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) then said:
  "I am not surrendering any convictions I have ever held."
  I commend those views to some of those who think that Free Trade doctrine is necessarily inconsistent with the
  1960
  principles of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) proceeds:
  "None of us who approaches the matter with a free mind and with the lessons which the War has taught us, everyone, it does not matter whether you are a protected or a Free Trade country for this purpose, all of us have been too dependent on the chances and risks which we did not adequately foresee and against which we certainly did not satisfactorily provide."
  It is not necessary to remind the House that there is nothing inconsistent between free trade and the policy which we now propose, or the policy which the right hon Gentleman, the Member for Paisley, and his Government proposed, because it is the same. You may quote from Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill passages which declare the necessity of protecting industry when it is necessary for the defence of the country or protecting any particular young industry which otherwise would not have a chance of growing. Surely if there is any industry vital to our commerce and which is necessary for our security it is this great dye industry with which we are dealing to-day.
  I have kept to the last the most important consideration of all. The foundation upon which the setting up of the British Dyes Corporation was based was getting rid of our dependence on outside sources-of supply, but besides the great necessity of dyes for our own industries during the War we discovered something else. We discovered that the country which has the largest dye-making industry has got within its borders a very powerful agent in the waging of war.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought the last war was a war to end war.
  Sir R. HORNE: The German dye industry produced a very great amount of the materials necessary for the manufacture of explosives, and Britain was very severely handicapped, because it had no such industry on which it could call for that kind of production. All the fundamental processes involved in the making of dyes are just the same as those which are necessary for the making of explosives, and you can turn a dye-making factory at very short notice into a factory for the making of the ingredients of explosives. Even the very small dye-making factories we have in this country made large quantities of picric acid during the war. We have been told by a military commission which has in-

  1961
  vestigated this problem in Germany what an enormous agent these factories were to Germany in the waging of the War. More than that, it is not untrue to say that Germany succeeded in making war much longer than she otherwise would have done because of the dye industry, which enabled her to support a very large body of skilled chemists. There is no industry in which you can afford to support a large number of skilled chemists except the dye industry.
  One of the results of our previous policy in regard to this industry is that we had very few skilled chemists at the outbreak of the War, while Germany had a large number. What was one of the results? It was through the dye-making industry of Germany that they discovered the process of extracting nitrates from the air, and but for the discovery of this means of producing nitric acid, Germany could not have continued to wage the War No doubt these are considerations which do not seem to affect our minds so much when you think that perhaps we have reached the end of War, but he would be a great optimist who would suppose we are never going again to be in that position of difficulty. Failing due provision, you may be attacked by your enemy with a power and force which you cannot repel simply because you failed to do your duty in fostering the industry here which you require. The United States have a system of prohibition now against German dyes. They exercise their prohibition under the arrangement which they made during the War, and there is now before the Legislature in America a Bill to establish a system of prohibition and licences. At present there is the ordinary tariff against imported dyes, as well as prohibition. The arrangement under the Bill is that licences shall only be granted on the terms of the existing tariff, which means a 30 per cent, ad valorem duty on finished dyestuffs and a further specific duty of five cents in the pound. Under these arrangements the United States of America, which, like ourselves, before the War, was dependent on Germany for dyestuffs to a large extent, is now building up a very great industry, and they have probably the biggest amalgamation of chemical concerns in America with a capital of something like £60,000,000. It is perfectly plain, therefore, that they are not going to allow America to be depen-
  1962
  dent on outside sources for a commodity which they realise, and which we also ought to realise, is vital, not merely to the industries of the country, but possibly also to its very existence. There have been some criticisms with regard to the British Dyestuffs Corporation to which I will refer in a moment. I do not think it justifiable to criticise the carrying on of that industry by its result in the Way I repeatedly notice, and I wish to say again that they were hampered during the War by the great amount of attention that they had to pay to the needs of the country in the way of explosives. Prior to the War the whole manufacture of British dyes amounted to something like 2,000 tons in a year, while about 20,000 tons were brought in from outside. In the year 1918 the English manufacturers produced 17,500 tons, and we took only 2,000 tons from outside. In 1919 we manufactured 20,000 tons and got 2,500 tons from outside. It is impossible to say, therefore, that the British Dyestuffs Corporation has not served the nation well.
  Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the respective values of the 20,000 tons and the 2,000 tons?
  Sir R. HORNE: I am sorry I have not got the respective values here. No doubt the smaller quantity we got from the outside consisted of the more special range of dyes. The point is, nevertheless, that whereas previous to the War we only supplied dye consumers with 2,000 tons of dyes, in 1919 we were supplying them with 20,000 tons.
  Sir E. CARSON: What is the percentage of the dyestuffs mentioned in this Bill which we are able now to supply ourselves with?
  Sir R. HORNE: I cannot give my right hon. Friend an accurate answer, but so far as I can gather the bulk of the dyes we require here are not of the highest ranges. These higher ranges are comparatively small in actual quantity, and, therefore, I think might not be very different from the figures I have given. What is happening to-day is that the Germans are sending dyes here of both classes—the higher as well as the lower ranges—and they are sending them at prices with which the British Dyestuffs Corporation at the

  1963
  moment cannot compete. They are aided, as the House will readily understand, in many ways: first, by the fact that they have been carrying on this industry for many years, and in the second place the difference in exchange makes it quite impossible to meet that particular form of competition. If this is allowed to go on, as is happening to-day, we may very soon clear out the dye industry from this country. People who make these criticisms of the British Dyestuffs Corporation are very ungrateful. What has been one of the chief features of our trade, since the Armistice? Has it not been the enormous success of our textile industry? That industry has made more money in i hat period than it ever before made in its existence. Its exports went up to an extent almost inconceivable, and it was all done with the aid of British dyes and a small quantity of Swiss dyes. During that period Germany was unable to supply us with any dyes. Surely then something is due to the British Dyestuffs Corporation for having managed its industry so well as to enable the textile industry to carry on during a period of booming trade and to sell products to the world of enormous value. But at present the situation is that that trade is disappearing. The importation of German dyes during this year has been steadily increasing in quantity. In the months of January and February the average amount was 500 tons per month. Now it baa risen to 1,430 tons per month, and what it will be later on one can only surmise.
  Sir W. BARTON: Does that include the amount imported under the reparation Clauses?
  Sir R. HORNE: I will give the amount under the reparation Clauses separately. For the first nine months of this year from Germany there came 3,000 tons, including 880 tons under the reparation Clauses. There were also 2,300 tons of Swiss dyes and 2,100 tons from America.
  Mr. FRANCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion Switzerland sent of the rarer and finer dyes during that period?
  Sir R. HORNE: Switzerland sent 2,000 tons in 1918 and 2,500 tons in 1919, and the bulk of that was of the rarer and higher grade dyes. Of course, the object of the dye industry in this country is to
  1964
  attain a steadily increasing efficiency, and no doubt it will succeed in that, and finally attain the highest ranges of dyes that can be made. There is no reason why, from the very nature of the industry, we should not manufacture the highest form of dyes now made in Germany.
  Mr. FRANCE: If there is no competition?
  Sir R. HORNE: Under prohibition and licences there must be some competition. If hon. Members will remember what I said in the earlier part of my speech, under any licensing system dyes will certainly be imported from Germany, and the dyes produced here will consequently be subject to German competition. You will have the matter fully thrashed out on the Licensing Committee as between the consumer and the producer. The consumer will be there in larger numbers than the producer, and in the result it is inevitable that the producer will give the best dye he can. The inquiries and investigations continually being made by the Licensing Committee will always be a stimulus to the dye producer to increase the efficiency of his system, and that is one reason why a system of this kind is infinitely preferable to a system of subsidies, which really put a premium on incompetence. Under a subsidised system you have to discover what it costs the dye producer to produce and sell at a price at which he can compete with the German; you have to ascertain the difference between his cost and the German price, and give him a subsidy to the extent of the whole amount. Such a system involves a very meticulous investigation, and I venture to submit that any proposal with regard to a subsidy must inevitably break down.
  Sir E. CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question is at all affected by the number of patents the Germans have in this country for the manufacture of dyes? According to my recollection the Germans opposed the granting of every possible patent in this country.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir R. HORNE: I believe the Germans proposed to set up works here in order to get inside the barrier of our Patents Act. So far as German patents are concerned, speaking from memory, my impression is that in all cases of manufacture in this country the German patents are

  1965
  no longer operative, and accordingly that obstruction no longer exists. I see there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Terrell), "That the Bill be read a Second time this day three months." I was rather surprised to see that Amendment, but I take it that the real desire of the hon. Gentleman is to protest against the dye industry being treated separately. If that is his point I think the answer is very obvious. I agree at once there are other industries, reference to which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, in the speech from which I have already quoted—there are other industries which deserve to be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. The only reason why they are not being dealt with now is because of the lack of time during this Session. But I will give my hon. Friend the assurance that they will be dealt with at the earliest possible moment next Session. The case of dyes is really a special case, as I think the hon. Gentleman will realise, not only because of the very great urgency of the condition of the dye industry at the moment, but because of the fact that special pledges were given by the Government of the day, with the consent and acquiescence of the House of Commons, to the shareholders who subscribed to the British Dyestuffs Corporation, and that makes an element of distinction which occurs in the case of no other key industry. If this Bill does not succeed for dyes no Bill for any other industry can ever succeed.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: A very definite undertaking was given by my right hon. Friend that the Dye Bill, or a Key Industry Bill, by which he meant dye-stuffs, would be the first business of next Session. Will he continue that undertaking, that the Bill for key indutries will also be the first business of next Session? If we are to take a Bill for the other industries as the first business of next Session, I have no objection whatever to the present Bill going through. In fact, I will support my right hon. Friend.
  Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend may take it that the intention of the Government is still to make the Bill dealing with the other key industries the first measure of next Session. There are two other Amendments on the Paper, be-
  1966
  tween which there is not much difference, except that the latter is perhaps a little more violent than the former. The first of them takes objection to the Bill because it does not provide the best means of safeguarding the dye-making industry. No better way has been found than the method which has been adopted by all of those who have investigated this problem. It was approved by the colour users themselves, and no other form of defence of the dye industry would be either so easy to work, or would be so perfect in its operation. Then it is said it is calculated to injure seriously the export trade in textiles. I do not follow that suggestion. It was because, the textile trade was in danger of disaster that the dye-making industry was pushed, and I cannot imagine that a Bill in which the textile trade now not only acquiesces, but to which it is giving hearty support could be in any way inimical to their interest. Then it is said to contravene fundamentally the existing trading system of the country by establishing Protection in its worst form. That, as it appears to me, is really a fantasy. To say that it is Protection in its worst form to deal with an industry which everyone agrees must be defended by a system which imposes no duty, which allows the importation, with no cost, of all that you require—it is perfectly ridiculous to describe that as, in any sense, Protection in its worst form. If you do not pass this Bill, what are you going to do? It is perfectly certain that without a measure of this kind the dye industry will be killed. The figures I have quoted already show what will happen. Already 2,000 men have been discharged from their employment, and the rest will follow. What is the position you would be in then? You would have broken your pledge to the people who put their money, their skill and their brains into this concern. You would disperse the bands of chemists of great merit that you collected with great difficulty, and you would practically advertise to the world that skilled chemists for that kind of commercial work are no longer to have any field in Great Britain. In addition, you will be, so far as peace-time is concerned, in the same position of dependence upon outside supplies for vital industries in which you found yourself at the beginning of the War, and which, all through the War, everyone connected with industry deplored and

  1967
  lamented. And in war your weakness in the chemical industry, which has now become the foundation of much of the mechanism of combat, will imperil the very national existence.
  Major BARNES: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, under the pretext of providing for national defence, reintroduces the vicious protectionist system of prohibition and licences, which will inflict grave injury upon the textile industries of the country."
  When I contemplate the right hon. Gentleman surrounded by all the panoply of the OFFICIAL REPORT, Cabinet memoranda, circulars and reports, I feel rather like David approaching Goliath. I can only hope that I may have somewhat of the same good fortune. I think the right hon. Gentleman had not approached this subject quite with that philosophic calm that characterises him in most of his discussions in this House. He has imported a good deal of heat into the discussion, and I should like, if I could, to abstract some of that and reduce the temperature to one in which we may fitly and calmly discuss what is a matter of very grave national importance. The right hon. Gentleman showed particular surprise and some indignation at discovering what he conceives to be inconsistency on this side of the House. He lays down the doctrine that upon no account must you allow circumstances to modify your opinions. That seems to be a very daring doctrine to come from a Member of the Government of which the Prime Minister is the head. I do not know what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) is going to say. He will no doubt indicate whether he takes the same view in 1920 which apparently, from what has been put before us, he took in 1916. If it should be that he has modified his opinion, he will not be the first great Liberal Leader who has done it. Really it is daring, to say the least of it, for the right hon. Gentleman to approach us upon that line. I think he will agree that the opposition that comes to this Bill cannot in any sense of the word be looked upon as party opposition. It comes from all parts of the House. There are Amendments down against the Bill from every quarter. That can easily be understood.
  1968
  Let us assume that it raises the question of Free Trade. That is not a party issue in this House. The Coalition, at least, at present, has not declared itself for Protection and there are Free Traders as ardent and convinced on the opposite Benches as there are on these. So that from that point of view the question that is raised is not a party issue. Then if the question that is raised is one of prohibition and licence, there is as much detestation of the control of trade by licence and by prohibition on the opposite side as there is in this quarter. We are all fed up with Government control and interference with trade. It is a striking thing that just at a moment when the country is crying out for the release from Government control of two such great industries as the mines and the railway's, the right hon. Gentleman should ask the House to place an even greater industry than either of those —the great textile industry—practically in a strait jacket, because that is what the Bill proposes to do. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there are many of us who are quite indifferent to the question of national safety that is raised by this Bill. There is no such position taken up by any Member in the House. In so far as the dye industry is a means of securing the defence of this country we are all at one, and our feelings upon these Benches are no different respecting that point to-day from what they were in 1916. That is not the issue at all. The issue before the House at present is not the question as to whether you are going to have a dye industry. The only question is whether this Bill is the best method of protecting it, and the best thing for the country, and the best thing for the great textile industry, to whose interests no one can be indifferent, would be best consulted if we clear away from our minds altogether this talk about inconsistency and what happened in 1916, and what happened in 1920—if we clear away altogether the question what part the dye industry is going to play in national defence. There is no question of that at all. The sole issue before the House is as to whether the prohibition of the imports of dyes, except under licence is the best method for protecting the dye industry.
  Let us visualise what the situation is. We have two industries before us. One

  1969
  is an industry which is employing something like 1,500,000 people; the other employs fewer than 10,000. The dye-using industries and the colour-using trade, that is to say the textile trade, the leather trade, the silk and paper trades are reponsible for an export of something like £350,000,000 a year, and that figure is arrived at after making a liberal calculation for all those textiles in which colour is not employed. The total production of the dye industry cannot be valued, at the outside, at more than £10,000,000. So there is the picture. We have to consider the interest of the smaller industry and its peculiar claims upon us. We admit that as freely as the right hon. Gentleman. On the other hand, we have to consider an industry employing 1,500,000 people with an export trade of £350,000,000, and I submit with confidence that we are bound to be as chary as we possibly can in taking any steps which are going to affect detrimentally so fundamental an industry, an industry upon which the prosperity of the country so largely rests. That is the position in which we find ourselves. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to make play about political inconsistencies. That really is nothing at all. It is all very well for him to finish up on a very solemn note about moral duty and pledges. It is all very well for him to tell us the part that this industry plays with regard to war. We appreciate that quite as much as he does. We are just as much concerned as he is to maintain the dye industry. All we are asking him to do now, and all we are asking the House to do, is to consider what is the best means of doing it, and we submit that the way he proposes is not the best. Let us consider what the situation will be if this Bill is passed. We have been told that there is a difference of opinion amongst colour consumers. It is a significant fact—the right hon. Gentleman minimised it, but the House will give full value to it—that the Calico Printers' Association is utterly and entirely opposed to this Bill. I would remind the House that the export of cotton printed goods during the last 10 months amounted to something like £170,000,000, and this House cannot regard with indifference the protest made by a body of industry with a trade of this magnitude, which they believe is affected by this Bill.
  Sir R. HORNE: That is not all the calico printers. Not all the calico printers' associations are opposing this measure. The Calico Printers' Federation, which, roughly speaking, has twice the machinery of the Calico Printers' Association, is in favour of the Bill. The Calico Printers' Association's consumption of dyestuffs is probably a little more than half that of the Calico Printers' Federation.
  Major BARNES: As the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point about the question of agreement; I will deal with it. I have had some opportunity during the last 10 months of hearing opinion from every quarter of those engaged both in the manufacture and in the use of dyes, and my only excuse for intervening in this Debate is that I have had that opportunity. I have been sitting on a Committee which has been taking evidence in all parts of the country, and I have had the opportunity of acquainting myself with that evidence. The right hon. Gentleman has denied himself that opportunity, and has deprived this House of it. It would not be proper, and I shall not attempt, to quote extracts from that evidence, but I feel that I am at liberty to state the conclusions which I have reached after hearing it. If the right hon. Gentleman challenges those conclusions, then, I say, let him publish the evidence, and let the House decide between us.
  This proposal is not a proposal from the colour consumers. It does not come from the Bradford Dyers' Association, or the Colour Users' Association, or any of the colour consumers. What has happened has been that the Board of Trade has said to the colour consumers of this country, "We have got to have protection for the dye industry, because it is essential for national defence," and they, being patriotic people, have said, "If that is so we must submit to it." But they have asked, through the right hon. Gentleman and the Board of Trade, that, if the dye industry must be protected, it should be done in a way that would not affect the interests of the colour consumers. They have been told, in reply, that the only way in which it can be done is the way which is now proposed, and that the reason why it is the only way is because of the pledge which was given by the Government, and which was incorporated in the prospectus of the British Dyestuffs Corporation. I take it

  1971
  that the Government are not going to leave this matter free to the House, but that we are committed to this way, which is only one of a number of ways in which the dye industry could be protected, and we are committed and tied up in this way because the Government has given a pledge, upon which a number of people have invested money in the British Dyestuffs Corporation.
  That is not a position in which this House ought to find itself when it has before it a question of such grave importance to so many people. The right hon. Gentleman has received a letter from organisations representing 90 per cent, of the operatives—that is to say, the 1,500,000 who are engaged in this trade—protesting against the way in which this Bill is being rushed through the House without their being consulted at all. They feel, very naturally, that a measure of this kind may have the gravest results upon their employment, and they have protested; and when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has 90 per cent of the colour consumers with him, and does not say a word about this communication from 90 per cent, of the operatives, I say that he is not treating this House with fairness and candour. Let us think for a moment how this trade is carried on. We are sending textiles all over the world—to China, India, the Near East, South America; and in all those places the market for these textiles depends very largely upon the colour—the particular shade and the particular pattern. It is the women in those countries, very largely, who buy these goods. An hon. Member opposite expresses astonishment, but that opinion is not my opinion; it is the opinion expressed by the Calico Printers' Association. They say that very largely the question of selection in those countries depends upon the taste there, and they have studios all over the world with men preparing designs and studying the tastes of the people on the spot, and sending home to this country the ideas that are wanted. In the ordinary course of events, when the calico printer gets that information, he has the world's supply of dyes to draw upon. Under this Bill, if it be passed, he will be limited to the British supply—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—unless he can show to the Licensing Com-
  1972
  mittee that the dye which he wants cannot be obtained in this country. Think what that means.
  It has been suggested that this is a very simple matter, and one would think, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that there were only a small number of dyes, and that only a small number of differences of opinion could arise. As a matter of fact, the different shades of dyes run into thousands. We all know how difficult it is to agree with another person upon a shade; one shade may appear to be almost the same as another. What the calico printer has to do in the future is to come to a Committee and get this Committee to agree with him that some particular shade or other that he wants cannot be got in this country, and to give him a licence to get it from abroad. How can trade be carried on under those conditions? Is there any industry in this country, outside of this one, that would agree for a moment to having its chief product treated in this way? Everyone in this House who has carried on any kind of business when supplies were short, and has had to go to the Ministry of Munitions for priority orders, knows the delay and inconvenience that arose, and I ask hon. Members who are. engaged in other industries whether they would consent for a moment to their industry being placed under the conditions under which they are asked now to place the textile industry.
  That is what we have really to settle. We have to be satisfied that there is no other way of protecting and establishing and maintaining the dye industry in this country than this particular way of prohibition and licensing of imports. That is the only issue. We say that there are other ways, and we say, particularly, that the policy of the Government in this respect is conditioned by circumstances which they themselves have brought about. The right hon. Gentleman gave us the history of the dye industry down to the 6th October, 1916, when a Committee of the Cabinet reported that this method of prohibition of imports was the best method. When I heard the composition of that Committee, I was not surprised at the report. The Lord Privy Seal was on that Committee, and I remember reading, in the Debate that took place in this House in 1914, when the scheme for British Dyes, Limited,

  1973
  was first put forward, that the Lord Privy Seal said on that occasion that the only method that could be pursued was the method of prohibition. That was his opinion from the very start, and it is his opinion to-day. He was on this Committee, and I am not surprised that any Committee on which he sits should have come to conclusions which are his.
  The position with regard to the dye industry in this country now is that we have practically a dye trust formed by the action of the present Government. We have been told that, before this Government came into power, a fusion was contemplated in the dye industry. That, no doubt, is perfectly true, but I want the House to realise that, when British Dyes, Limited, was set up, it was a productive company of co-operative producers, and the people who were interested in it were the colour consumers. They were interested in it, not for the purpose of making profits or dividends, but for the purpose of getting dyes and carrying on research; and, in order to ensure that, under the terms of the loan made by the Government, the interest was limited to 6 per cent. That was the position with regard to British Dyes, Limited. On the other hand, we had the firm of Messrs. Levinstein, of Manchester, who ultimately became incorporated with them, forming together the British Dyestuffs Corporation. Messrs. Levinstein's business was carried on ordinary commercial lines, and its chief concern, like that of any other commercial firm, was, not the making of dyes, but the making of profits—and very handsome profits they did make during the War. There, is no reason to complain of that; they acted no differently from any other firm. The fact, however, remains that that was their position. On the one hand you had a body set up by the Government of the day for the sole purpose of developing the dye industry in this country, and limited as to profits. On the other hand, you had an ordinary commercial company carrying on in a period of great scarcity and making very considerable profits. When the question was taken in hand by the present Government, on its coming into power, they had to decide whether the fusion should go on the lines of a public body acting with public money and concerned simply with the development of the dye industry, or whether it should go on the lines of an
  1974
  ordinary commercial concern carried on for the ordinary commercial purpose of making dividends and profits. They decided in favour of the latter, and their decision was met by opposition from the directors of British Dyes, Limited, which opposition they carried to the point of resignation. They felt that the Government were taking a wrong course, and in that view they are supported by the whole of the colour users of this country. What the colour users of this country want is not a company carried on for the sake of dividends or profits, but a company the main purpose of which is to develop research into the great industry of dyes.
  I have heard it said in all quarters that an initial mistake was made when the public was allowed to put its money into this concern, and was asked to do so. That is said, not only by the calico printers, but by the Bradford Dyers' Association and the Colour Users' Association. Public money ought never to have been invested in this industry in its present condition. Everybody who knew anything about it knew that before the dye industry could become a commercial success an enormous amount of money must be spent on research. That is how the German dye industry was built up. It was not built up by State grants, or by Import Duties, but by a considerable expenditure of time, money, and skill. The original policy of British Dyestuffs, Ltd., was to establish a company in this country that could develop the dye industry on lines of research, and not primarily for the sake of profit. That was abandoned by the present Government; they threw that overboard, and they have formed what is, to all intents and purposes, a great dye trust in this country. It is admitted that this trust controls 75 per cent, to 80 per cent, of the dye indusry, and the Committee on Trusts has laid it down that any firm which controls 75 per cent, or 80 per cent, of an industry is practically a monopoly. Therefore the House is in this position, that, having formed this monopoly, having formed a dye trust, having formed a body which does not exist in the main for the purpose of developing the dye industry, but which exists for the purpose of making profits and dividends, the Government now ask this House to convert that trust into a practical monopoly. There is all the difference in the world

  1975
  between imposing prohibition on imports when you have competing concerns inside the country who may be relied upon to stimulate research, to improve quality and to reduce prices, and imposing prohibitions on imports where you have a trust formed in the country whose interests are of no such kind.
  Sir W. PEARCE: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to mislead the House, but I have in my hand a prospectus of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, and I find that on two classes of shares the dividend is limited to 7 per cent, in one case and to 8 per cent, in the other, and that, with the exception of that, the company exists for the benefit of the public.
  Major BARNES: I am very glad that that point has been raised, because I have a prospectus of the company as well, and if the hon. Member will turn to that prospectus he will see that there is no limitation. The prospectus says:
  "The profits of the company available for distribution will be applied in the following order of priority: First, in payment of 7 per cent, on the preference shares; secondly, in payment of 8 per cent, on the preferred ordinary shares; thirdly, in payment of 8 per cent, on the deferred ordinary shares; and, fourthly, in the payment of further dividends at equal rates to the preferred ordinary and deferred ordinary snares."
  There is no imitation. When British Dyes, Ltd., was set up, there was a limitation of 6 per cent., but when the British Dyestuffs Corporation was formed they approached the present Government with the request that the money that had been advanced to British Dyes, Ltd., should be handed over to them, and that the limitation of profits should be taken off. That is what has been done, and this Government, after removing the limitation on profits and having converted this public research company—for that is what it was—into an ordinary commercial trust, now comes this afternoon and asks the House to convert it into a monopoly, whilst prohibiting at the same time the import of dyes. That is the real ground for opposition to this Bll. Let the Government revert to the original position. Let them make this company what is should have been, namely, a co-operative company of colour users whose main object would be to produce the largest
  1976
  amount of dyes of the best quality at the lowest price, irrespective of dividend, and then they would secure some measure of support for this Bill. There are models for it in this country. We have a very striking instance of what can be done without State help of any kind, without restriction of imports and without duties, and that is the British Alizarine Company. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that dyes fall into different groups. Alizarine is a very important group of dyes. About 1881 the Germans had formed an Alizarine Convention, and they threatened either to cut off the dyestuffs TO this country or to push their prices up. The dyers in the right hon. Gentleman's country—and he might have taken a lesson from them rather than from the Southerners—the Scotch dyers got together and said, "We will not have this. We will form a company of our own and produce alizarine." They started a company, without State help, without any grants for research, and without any Bill for prohibiting imports. They formed a co-operative company and made their own dyes, and the result was that in a year or two the Germans were forced to take them into their Convention, and they have carried on ever since.
  Sir R, HORNE: They are getting large grants from the Government now.
  Major BARNES: The right hon. Gentleman says that they have come to the Government for grants.
  Sir R. HORNE: They are getting them.
  Major BARNES: I am aware of that, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is because dye and other companies have come for grants. The Board of Trade came to this House and got £1,000,000 in order to make grants and loans to those dye works which were carrying on a policy that was very successfully conducted by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Kellaway) at the Ministry of Munitions. During the War anybody could come and get a grant in order to extend their works, or a loan.
  Mr. BRIGGS: I can tell the hon. Member that the British Alizarine Company have paid 12½ per cent, dividend for the last 20 years.
  Major BARNES: Excellent! Could you have a better illustration of what can be done without State help?
  Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: That is not right. I am a dye user of 27 years' standing, and I can say that in 1914, before the War, this company was being seriously undercut in price by the Germans, and if it had not been for the War the company would have crumpled up before now.
  Major BARNES: The House can put the statements made by the two hon. Gentlemen side by side. The products of the British Alizarine Company have increased less in price than those of any other dye industry, and particularly in comparison with those of the British Dyestuffs Corporation. That is a model that should have been encouraged. The model of the British Alizarine Company was followed by the British Dyes, Limited, and that was the policy which the Government should have encouraged. They should have assisted that policy either by grants or loans, if need be. The German dye industry was built up by the application of time and money and scientific re search for years, and that is the only way in which a successful industry can be built up. If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Report of the Commission that was sent over a few years ago to examine into the German chemical industry, they will find it stated emphatically that the German industry has been built up without State aid, or financial assistance or import duties, but by the expenditure of large sums of money in scientific research. If the dye industry is wanted as a means of defence it becomes part of the general armament policy of the country, and should be openly borne as part of the general armament policy. Let it in that case be put upon the Votes. We know what we are paying for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and if we are to have a chemical force let us know what we are paying for it. You have the precedent for that in regard to the Cunard liners. We did not pass a Bill to prohibit people from building liners. We said to the Cunard Company, "We want your boats in time of war, and we want them made in a certain way." The company said that the cost would be so much, and we paid it. That is one method of treating the dye industry. If you want their plant in time of war, you should be prepared to pay for it in the way that was done in regard to the Cunard steamers.
  Commander Sir. E. NICHOLL: The Cunard Company had been subsidised for years before the War.
  Major BARNES: I am advocating that we should treat the dye company as we treat the Cunard Company, and if we want it for war purposes we should use-it for that purpose.
  Sir E. NICHOLL: The Cunard Company had been subsidised by this country for years in the event of their boats being required for war purposes.
  Major BARNES: We realise that. That is my point. We want to be certain that the money granted to the dye industry is applied to scientific research. What guarantee have we that that will be done under this Bill? We are asked to pass this Bill, which will enable the British Dyestuffs Corporation to make fabulous profits. There is no limitation. What guarantee have we that that money will be expended on scientific research and not put into dividends? I can understand that they want the policy of scarcity that we had during the War to continue. Look at the history of Leven-steins. They started with a capital of £90,000. Before the War their £10 shares were quoted at £2 10s. They had not paid a dividend for 15 years before the War. During the War their shares went up to £190. They were converted at the time that the British Dyestuffs Corporation was formed at the rate of £133; so that for every £10 share quoted at £2 10s. before the War, they got £133 in the British Dyestuffs Corporation. No wonder they want that policy to continue. Dr. Levenstein, who has played a great and a very worthy part in establishing this chemical industry—and it must be a little galling to to some hon. Members that it is owing to a gentleman of alien extraction that the salvation of the chemical industry of this country has been brought about—says that we must not lose what we have gained during the War. One can very well understand that. The position we have to face is, that if we pass this Bill we are putting into the hands of a great dye trust in this country an opportunity of making a tremendous toll on the textile industry, and we have no guarantee under this Bill or under the Articles of Association that the money so obtained will be applied to scientific research. The only conditions under which we can develop the great dye

  1979
  industry in this country are conditions that will compel the money that flows into that industry to be expended on further research and development.
  Sir W. BARTON: I beg to second the Amendment. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on his most thorough and effective speech. I have a little grudge against him, because many things I had intended to say he has said, and very well said. I was very much interested in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. It was an extraordinary speech. In one portion of it he seemed to tell us that because of promises made and pledges given by the Government this House had really nothing left to do but to pass the Bill and to say nothing about it. Still he did not show us an example, because he made a speech of a length and seriousness which showed that he considered that it was necessary to have a considerable defence and explanation of the Bill. One of the things he referred to was political memories. I confess that I find myself hampered on the subject by these very political memories. I remember that the supporters of the Coalition, like those who opposed it, at the last election declared their opposition to what is called dumping. I confess myself a wholly impenitent free trader, but we all know that we were involved by our leaders in opposition to dumping. I was very troubled about it until the other day I found salvation complete and absolute in a definition by the Prime Minister of what dumping really is:
  "A determined and systematic effort to damage British industry by exporting goods for sale below the cost of production in the country of origin."
  If that is what is to be prevented by the approaching anti-dumping Bill, I confess myself a hearty supporter. We also were committed to protect key industries. There, again, there is a difficulty about definition. I remember the Debate last Session, in which a then hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, who is now a right hon. Gentleman sitting on this, defined a key industry as an industry which produces something necessary for the conduct of war, and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Terrell) defined it as an industry giving employment. What industry does not give employment I do
  1980
  not know. Between those two extremes I have not yet been able to arrive at a definition, but if there is a difficulty in finding a definition, I admit that there is no great difficulty in finding an example, and this dye industry I take to be typical of a key industry. I start by admitting that. If necessary, its plant can be used either for industrial purposes or for war, and its product is the essential raw material, in a comparatively small industry, for a very great industry, and if there is a key industry, I agree that that is a key industry. That being so, we are undoubtedly committed to doing something.
  Here we are right up against those pledges if we are to take them literally given by a previous President of the Board of Trade. The matter is a settled matter now. This Bill is a literal fulfilment of these pledges. I can hardly think that it is said seriously that all pledges must be taken in that literal sense. If they were, what about hanging the Kaiser? On the other hand, I admit that it would be a serious matter for the House of Commons to turn its back on the pledge of a Minister. We must look at the Bill both in the circumstances of the time in which it originated and of the time in which it is brought before us. We are bound to consider whether it is the best way, in substance and in spirit, of carrying out the pledges which the right hon. Gentleman gave, though I admit that in this Bill we would not conform to the letter of those pledges.
  I speak of this matter as it relates to the textile industry. I am sure that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and misapprehension as to the relation of those industries to this Bill. Two or three times in the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "textile manufacturers" when he was really referring to colour users. We were told that there was agreement regarding this Bill between two parties, one called dye producers and the other called dye users. We are entitled to ask who these bodies really are? The dye producers we know. There are not more than twelve of them altogether. What they want is protection. The dye users, as we know them—and we do know them—are men for the most part running works operating upon cloth which is sent to them mainly from Manchester, though also from other parts of the country. They operate

  1981
  simply on that cloth, return it to the merchant and he pays them for their work. In many cases they do not even know what market the goods are for. They are simply carrying out this purely technical operation. This is the body— I submit a body which is suited neither by training nor anything else to form an opinion on the subject—whose assurance is given us as a guarantee that this Bill has the support of the textile trade and is conformed to the interests of that trade. That is not so. The real cotton men are objecting to this Bill, and our serious objection to it is that it is going to commit us to the second best, and the second best did not build up the great world trade, which is represented by the cotton trade. It was built up on a constant choice of the best that could be found whether of brains or material, wherever it could be found. If anybody thinks that we are concerned simply with a narrow matter of money making he is making a vital blunder. We have as great a pride in our trade and industry and the perfection to which we have brought it as ancient families have had in the past in their lineage and their great estates.
  I have tried to visualise myself or any other Manchester merchant going into the East to do business under this licensing scheme. Remember that, in these circumstances, a man does not go to sell goods which have already been produced. He goes to sell goods which have yet to be produced and to take the advice and guidance of those who are likely to buy these goods. The buyer of a commodity usually knows, or thinks he knows, better what he wants than the seller. This happens. A design is shown, and the buyer says, "I like that on the whole, but in this particular part I want you to make a certain alteration." He produces a little bit of a colour, and says, "I want that put in there." What is likely to happen in these circumstances? The salesman cannot cable home to Manchester, because he has got to send the colouring on by mail. When it arrives in Manchester, the merchant has to go to a dyer and printer and ask, "Have you this colour?" The dyer and printer says, "I do not know. I think that it is probably a foreign colour. I shall have to see the Licensing Committee." We will assume that he does see them, and they say, "It is a foreign
  1982
  colour, but our experts tell us that it can be produced quite well in this country "—a thing which appears to me to be likely to happen under this Bill. It is telegraphed to the seller in the East —and Heaven only knows what may have happened to his order in the meantime, as a couple of months have passed—that all they have got is the assurance that, though this is a foreign material, the producers in this country undertake to make it. I know what the wily Parsee would say, "I am quite willing to order, but you take the risk and guarantee that this colour will be the same as I put down before you." No Manchester merchant would take that risk. It would be impossible. So, altogether, I cannot see this Bill working.
  6.0 P.M.
  I cannot understand the frame of mind of the Government which introduces such a Bill at present when the whole country is crying out against bureaucracy, against licensing, against every alien influence that can be brought in to hinder the free flow of commerce. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman has a strong justification for the appeal—if not this, what? I am strongly of opinion that it is a greater misfortune to us that we have been committed to this. I am strongly of opinion that it will fail in operation and that it will be a cause of great financial loss. I try to remember the circumstances when Germany was confronted with a desire to set up an industrial system. I can well remember that she established great commissions to inquire in the various nations of the world whether there was an opening for her. A commission came to this country. They found there was an opening for the finer forms of chemicals and they started, not to make these things on any great scale, but they set up the most powerful and thorough research system that has ever been set up in the world. Then, by one of those strokes of fortune which come to nations as to individuals, they were able to avail themselves of discoveries of a very wonderful Manchester chemist, named Perkin. What they deserve credit for is that whilst chemical makers and capitalists in this country had the first offer of these wonderful products of the brain and rejected them, the Germans had the wisdom not only to avail themselves of them but to realise that they had hold of a good thing, and they followed

  1983
  it up until it formed the basis of the most wonderful trade organisation which has ever existed in the world.
  People say, that is what we want. That is what I want, but I wish to go the right way to get it, and I am sure this Bill is the wrong way. I wish I could believe the splendid assurances which have bean given to us, I am sure with all sincerity, but I am getting rather old in business, and I realise that when you are going into a new problem you want very carefully to examine its foundations. One of the secrets of ultimate success in commerce is to find something which the world really wants and is short of. What is the position about dyes? In every country in the world plant has been greatly increased. Why do we bring colour from abroad? Reference has been made to exports from Germany, and those exports being called dangerous dumping. What is the essential fact? We are paying for these colours seven times more than we paid before the War and we are paying a bigger price than that at which we could buy the same colour here in England. Why? Because the quality is better. There is the bloom, the perfection, the satisfaction to our customers abroad, which we cannot get in this country. Research, research, and again research; subsidise, subsidise for all that is necessary to arrive at the initial stags of perfection. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about the great colour factories in Germany. I have seen them in operation. When they send out a colour they send with it a finished piece of cloth, and they say, "There is your formula, there is the finished article. You can take it to any part of the world, and if our formula does not produce that we will stand behind you and make it good. "You will never establish a successful British industry until you arrive at a state of perfection at least equal to that. Even at this late hour I appeal to the House to consider the real needs of the nation, and, whilst honouring pledges, let us honour them in the spirit and substance as well as in the mere letter. It surely is a calamity that this thing should be rushed through in this way. Here we are, at the very end of a Session, discussing a matter on which there is deep controversy. Of all the exports of printed goods from this country this year, one
  1984
  company, the Calico Printers' Association, has produced more than half. They are the producers at the higher and more complex end of this business. I have noticed for many years that the tendency in the great cotton trade is that we are constantly losing at the bottom and gaining at the top end. I know of great developments projected in India to take over as far as possible the simpler and commoner forms of printed and dyed goods. I have seen the same thing happen before, but if we rise a step higher and get further in our development we invariably find that what we lose at the bottom end we gain at the top. It is because I want this country to be at the top end that I fear this Bill.
  Sir W. PEARCE: I hope to be able to prove to the House, that this industry, in the widest national sense, ought to be protected in the way indicated, both for war reasons and for peace reasons. I want to persuade my textile friends that the fears they express are very largely safeguarded by the Bill. I do not think they attach proper importance to the constitution of the Licensing Board. It is a Board of 11 people, and is to consist of only three dye producers, 5 dye users, and three members of the general public. With a body so constituted, the dye producers will have to show cause why dyes should not be imported before importation is stopped. The interests of the calico printer and of the British public are safeguarded very much more than some hon. Members have given us reason to think is the case. I can understand the arguments of the textile industry. What was the position of that industry before the War? They had at their disposal a whole range of colours imported at the lowest prices at which such colours could be obtained in the world. They were sold to the British manufacturer more cheaply than to the German manufacturer. It can be understood that the textile industry wanted nothing better than such a state of things. They were in a most favourable position. Why? The German associations had a reason for doing what they did. If they did not do what they did there was danger of opposition business being started in this country. Are we quite sure that they had no ulterior motive besides?
  German colour makers in those days were combined in two associations. Today there is only one. I have always felt

  1985
  that the achievement of this same group in fixing atmospheric nitrogen was one of the reasons why Germany entered into the War. In 1913 Germany was in a position to place on the European market 100,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia made from the air, and the plant could have been multiplied to any extent. Germany saw that if she went into the War, and the War lasted more than six months, there was no danger of her being cut off from supplies of nitrate of soda, without which the War could not have been continued. But for atmospheric nitrogen Germany could not have carried on the War. This was the work of the same organisation.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: Is it not the case that ammonium sulphate was obtained in greater part from the bye-products and the nitrogen from that?
  Sir W. PEARCE: The whole of that ammonium sulphate was converted into nitric acid to be used in the manufacture of high explosives. What I want the House to realise is that the large organisations which, perfected the dye industry and made it an enormous commercial success in that way helped the German war position enormously. What was our position at the beginning of the War? We soon found that many chemicals which had not been required in large quantities in this country before the War were absolutely necessary for us. The first thing the country discovered that we needed a very large supply of was sulphuric anhydride, known also as oleum. The total consumption in this country of that acid before the War was 400 or 500 tons per week, while the German production was 10,000 tons per week, or probably nearer to 20,000 tons per week. This acid was absolutely indispensable in the manufacture of gun cotton, T.N.T. and various explosives that were essential to the carrying on of the last stages of the War. Germany was in that position because it had this dye industry, and for two years this country was in great jeopardy because we had not that sulphuric anhydride supply. There was also the case of chlorine and hydrogen. There was not a big manufacture of either of those before the War in this country, while in Germany there were both made on an immense scale by the dye corporations. Chlorine was used for poison gas and hydrogen for the Zeppelins, and there were both in Germany in quan-
  1986
  tities which this country could not possibly undertake without months of waiting. There was also mustard gas for shells which was again produced by the German dye factories. I remember that this subject was so serious that we could not ventilate it in this House. A number of Members of the House of Commons went to the War Office and saw the Army Council. At this interview it was admitted by the Master-General of Ordnance, in reply to my questions, that "mustard gas shells were the most potent instrument of warfare at the moment," that "all the German field batteries were armed with these shells," that "none of our field batteries were so armed"; and I remember in 1918 mustard gas was a most potent instrument. I remember one gentleman throwing up his hands and saying, "This may lose us the War," and it might very well have done so. At any rate if our field artillery had possessed those mustard gas shells to a full degree when the push in March, 1918, happened the big advance which took place would not have been possible, and thousands and thousands of British lives would have been saved. I mention that to show to the House what an advantage Germany possessed from having this enormous dye industry.
  Captain ELLIOT: Is it not the case that before the War by far the largest production of chlorine was in this country and not in Germany?
  Sir W. PEARCE: The chlorine was converted into bleaching powder, and it would not have been possible to provide chlorine in the sense required for gas in the same way as you could in Germany. What these industries really mean and why they are necessary is this. They have large flexible plant which was turned over from peace operations to war operations, and they have an enormous number of trade personalities who are accustomed to work large plant, and they have engineers and practical chemists and a very large staff of research chemists who are able to follow out any problem. I have referred to our unfortunate position at the beginning of the War. We all hope that we may not again have such a war. But if another war does take place I do not think any scientific man qualified to speak will fail to say that chemistry will play a more and more important part in the warfare of the future than it has done in the past. Therefore unless the Govern-

  1987
  ment encourages this kind of manufacture we stand the greatest chance of being again in the same unfortunate position as we were at the start of the late War. With regard to the peace position this industry is probably the most important part of industrial chemistry, and unless we have an industry of a sort in this country research will not flourish to anything like the same degree as it does in those countries which possess such large plants. British chemists are equal in research to foreign chemists always, but the British chemist has had no opportunity of applying his research, and unless this sort of industry exists in the country that position will continue.
  All the signs of the time are that chemical science is going to be more and more important, and unless you have those industries on a flourishing scale in the country you are going to be in a second or third-rate position as far as industrial science is concerned, and it is almost as bad to be C3 on the industrial side as it is to be C3 in matters of national health. For these reasons I think the case is established that an industry of this kind should be encouraged by the Government. As to the national necessity, I want to strengthen to a small extent what the President of the Board said. He did not mention that the Committee that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), in his Government, to consider industrial policy after the War, and which consisted of men of all parties, reported on the 16th March, 1917, that in the interests of national safety this industry should be maintained at all costs and risks; those are not the exact words but are the purport of the report. The Government, before they made themselves responsible for the prospectus which has been so much criticised, had that before them. It was pointed out at the time that this was not a Free Trade question, but a question of national safety, and this was not the time to bring out the old arguments. Even John Stuart Mill admits that under these circumstances such action is justifiable. After all, this is not prohibition. The object is to establish an industry, here which is absolutely necessary for the national safety. In the prospectus we find the following:
  "His Majesty's Government having given their approval this company has been formed
  1988
  by arrangement with the Board of Trade. His Majesty's Government, in order to safeguard the dye industry from aggression by German undertakings and ensure a sufficient supply of dyes to meet the requirements of the textile and other trades of the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire, issued a Proclamation on 24th February, 1919, prohibiting except by licence the importation into the United Kingdom of all derivatives of coal tar capable of being used or adapted for use as dyestuffs and synthetic colours. This Proclamation was issued to give effect to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in the House of Commons on 15th May, 1918, namely, 'In order to safeguard this particular industry against the great efforts which these German dye firms are certain to make after the War to destroy all we have accomplished through the War, and to make this industry again subservient to Germany.…importation of all foreign dyestuffs shall be controlled by a system of licences for a period of not less than 10 years after the War.'"
  I do not think anybody can blame the Government for having given this assistance. I had the opportunity yesterday of seeing some people who have knowledge as to the dye industry in this country. I was surprised to learn, and so I think will the House, that not only are we getting the reparation dyes ourselves, but Belgium and America are not taking theirs, and they are finding their way here. That is part of the reason why the importation of dyes throughout the country has grown so enormously during the last few months. The delay of the Government in making the Proclamation effective in the last six months has made all the difference in the position of the dye industry in this country. There is an enormous stock in this country now either from Germany or from Belgium and Holland, and that has made the position of the industry extremely difficult in this country. British dyes, I happen to know, are carrying enormous stocks of dyes, and they have large contracts for the supply of raw material, and unless these German dyes are dealt with their position will practically become hopeless. Therefore, I think the Government were right to bring in this Bill now, and I think they ought to have brought it in before this, and if they had done so, the dye industry in this country would not have to face the dangers which it now has to face.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend opposite in the line which he has taken in discussing this measure. I think the great majority of

  1989
  the Members are in complete agreement as to the necessity for supporting this industry, and that it is important has been said over and over again in the course of the Debate. It is also perfectly clear that the Government is liable, under the terms of the prospectus which was issued, to see that the shareholders' money is secured by a proper measure of protection, but I hope that this is not the measure of protection which is going to be extended to other industries. I feel that the system of licences is really a bad one. One might accept it for temporary purposes, but I should much prefer to see this Bill made a temporary Bill, so that it could be moulded into shape in the general measure which has been promised to-day for the protection of other key industries. An hon. Gentleman on the Benches above the Gangway says, "Tariff Reform. "This is not a question of Tariff Reform or Free Trade; it has nothing whatever to do with it. There are some hon. Members who think that anything in the nature of protection of industry is harking back to the old argument of Free Trade and Tariff Reform, but what we are face to face with here is the collapse of the German exchange, and we have to devise a method of compensating that collapse, otherwise the whole of our industries would most certainly be ruined and wiped out. We are told that you cannot do it by a Customs Duty, but I do not think there is any doubt about it, that you can do it by a Customs Duty, which, I venture to think, is a much more straightforward method of accomplishing your object than this system of licences. You know where you are, and there is equal opportunity to all, and, incidentally, the Revenue would benefit largely by a system of Customs Duty; but what I should like to know in connection with the system which is proposed in this Bill is, who is to get the benefit of that great profit which is to be obtained to-day by importing commodities from Germany. Is the State to take it, is the German exporter to take it, or is the British importer to take it?
  Everyone knows there is a most profitable business being carried on at the present moment by importing goods from Germany to this country. If hon. Members want evidence of this, they have only to visit one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, where to-day there is an exhibition of goods which have been im-
  1990
  ported from Germany, and by the side of those goods there are goods of British manufacture, and the effect of the collapse of the exchange is that the German goods are, in the main, being imported at one-third of the cost of British goods. It is a very interesting object-lesson; I think all hon. Members have been invited to inspect these goods, and I am sure they would be interested if they went up to see them. This system of licences means simply this, that whoever imports these goods will be able to obtain a huge profit by it, and certainly, in times when the Treasury is so short of money, that should not be the object of the Government. Another fact that should be considered in connection with German trade is that Germany, by reason of the collapsed exchange, is in a better position to-day than she ever was before to pursue the old policy of peaceful penetration. The exchange helps her, for she can send her goods here, and it is not necessary to slightly undersell our home producers; she can knock our home industries to pieces. I quite admit that in some industries, where Germany is dependent on raw materials which have to be imported from abroad, she has to pay a very high price for those materials, and that restricts her capacity for export, but when you get to dyes, and to the thousand and one industries which are illustrated upstairs, Germany is self-contained. The question of raw materials from abroad does not enter into it at all, and that is what we have got to guard against.
  I have no hesitation in saying that we can do it by a Customs duty, and by a very small Customs duty, if we base that Customs duty on the real value of the goods and not on the depreciated value, which is the value shown in the Board of Trade returns, and which accounts for the £17,000,000 of imports which my right hon. Friend has declared to be the imports of the first nine months of this year. If you value those goods at their real value instead of £17,000,000, you will probably find there are a hundred millions of imports. If you levy a Customs duty on £100,000,000 it will produce a very substantial revenue, and I think it can be designed so as to compensate entirely for the loss in the exchange. That is the only point which I wish to make in rising to-day. I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend for the

  1991
  undertaking which he has given that a measure to deal with the key industries will be the first measure of next Session, and I trust that he will not attempt a measure based on the lines of the present Bill, namely, prohibitions and licences, because English traders have had enough of licences. With licences you get Government interference and control. Licences open the door to all sorts of corruption, and we want to have trade restored to the position so that, whatever barriers are erected against German or Austrian goods, or any other goods, which may interfere with the employment of our people, everyone has equal opportunity, and it is not necessary for anyone to go to a Government Department if he wants to carry on his business. I admit that it is important that the dye people should have the security which is being provided, but I would much prefer if my right hon. Friend would simply make this a temporary measure, not a Bill for ten years, and then incorporate the whole of the provisions which he wants for the dyes in one great Trade Bill, which, as he has already promised, should be introduced next Session.
  Mr. ASQUITH: The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat has sought to enlarge the area of the discussion and has got into territory in which I should be glad on a proper occasion to follow him, but as the President of the Board of Trade has reminded us, those are questions which are not germane to this discussion to-day. Sufficient for the day are the Orders thereof, and I think we shall do wisely to confine ourselves to the provisions of the measure which is actually before us. I am not going to detain the House for more than two or three minutes, and I only rise for the purpose of stating my own position in the matter, which is unique. My right hon. Friend devoted a certain part of his speech, rather unprofitably, I thought, to quotations from past declarations of my own on this subject. I would only say in regard to the quotations which he made from a speech which, I think, I delivered here in August, 1916, that as I listened to his citations, they seemed to me to contain a very sound doctrine, and I do not recede from or qualify any one of them. Indeed, the only criticism which now, as a mild, dispassionate auditor of what I said so long ago, I have to offer is that they came perilously near platitude.
  1992
  The other part of my right hon. Friend's speech, so far as I am concerned, was much more germane to the matter, namely, the action which was taken by the Government of which I was the Head in the year 1916. I said to the House in my opening sentences that I am speaking for myself, and for a very good reason, that of the Members of the Cabinet who were then responsible for the control of affairs, with the exception of one or two who have been absorbed in the present Government, the remainder, with the single exception of myself, are, I believe, for the time being certainly not Members of this House, but not active participants in public life. Therefore, I am speaking entirely for myself. It is perfectly true that we were impressed, and I think properly impressed—and I am as much impressed to-day as I was then—with the necessity for an industry of this kind, both from the point of view of times of peace and times of war, being an independent industry in this country. I think it is an element in our national security, and at once, at the Very earliest stages of the War, we came to the assistance, with a Government subsidy, of the dye-making trade. We then appointed, as my right hon. Friend has reminded us, a Committee of the Cabinet on which were represented, and very ably represented, what I might call both sides of fiscal opinion, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that the proper way of dealing with the matter was for a limited period after the War to safeguard the British industry by some system of regulated importation. I had no personal power in the matter, being immersed in other matters at the time, but I accepted full responsibility for that Report, which was, if my recollection is correct, adopted by the Cabinet of the day. At a later date, two years afterwards, it was referred to in this House by the then President of the Board of Trade, Sir Albert Stanley, as representing the considered opinion both of the late and of the existing Government. The prospectus was issued with the authority of the Government, I presume, because the Government were subscribing to the issue of the capital applied for. Two or three months later that declaration was referred to, and treated as part of the considered policy of the Government of the country, and I think there is strong reason for the statement that some, at

  1993
  any rate, of those who subscribe to the issue may reasonably have been influenced by that consideration.
  I have taken some interest in the matter, and I say quite frankly—I am speaking only for myself—that I shall not feel justified in voting against the Second Reading of this Bill; but, as I say, that is a matter which concerns me, and me alone. I was very strongly impressed with the considerations which were put forward in the admirable speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) in moving his Amendment, and I want, if I may, to impress upon the Government that there is really no question here of what I may call the abstract question of Free Trade and Protection. It does not arise. The question is what is the best—in other words, what is the least inconvenient and least injurious—method of safeguarding what we all agree to be an important national industry. I want to bring before the Government one or two considerations which were very ably presented as illustrations in the speech of my hon. Friend. I think myself that we have a right in this matter to proceed by way of subsidy. I believe there is no other course open to us. It is a far less objectionable course, in my opinion, in all cases of this kind than to proceed by the other method, of which my hon. Friend is such a consistent and able advocate. At any rate, we did proceed by subsidy, and our successors have done the same. But, having done so, and I think rightly done so, it is very important that when the Government devotes public money to an enterprise of this kind, and when it invites, as we invited, the co-operation not only of the makers of dyes, but of the users of dyes, it is of the highest importance that every possible security should be taken against what I may call unlimited private profits. I think I am right in saying—I shall be corrected by the President of the Board of Trade if I am not—that we limited the profits in the case of the original subsidy to the British Dyestuffs Corporation to 6 per cent.
  Sir R. HORNE: There was a limitation, but I cannot be certain as to the figure.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I think it was desirable, and it is desirable now, that some limitation of that kind should take place
  1994
  with regard to the profits of this Corporation or any corporation which receives a public subsidy. Shareholders ought to have an adequate return for what is undoubtedly, as events have proved, a more or less risky adventure, but when you have given them, as you ought to give them, an adequate security, the balance, if there be any, of surplus profits ought, in my judgment, in such cases always to be applied to the advancement of research and the improvement of the industry itself. If a man gets 6 per cent., 7 per cent., or 8 per cent., it ought to be enough in an undertaking of this kind where his co-operation is invited, not merely upon the ordinary ground of an expectation of profits, but as more or less of a patriotic duty to assist the State in the preservation of a vital industry. The history of the dye industry in this country is one of the most humiliating chapters in British trade. I do not know anything more discreditable. We had the whole trade in our hands, and at our feet, and if our men of business had shown intelligence and foresight, if they had not been wrapped in lethargy and apathy, there is no reason whatever why these inventions, which proceeded largely from British brains and British capital—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sir William Perkin!"] —Sir William Perkin will always be eminent in the annals of British chemistry —there is no reason, I say, why this should not have been from the very beginning, and continued throughout, a British and not a German industry. It is no use blaming the Germans or throwing stones at them. They had the foresight to see the potentialities of these discoveries, the energy to pursue them and the wisdom to enlist in their service the skill and zeal of the most eminent chemists of their own country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Plus protection!"] Protection has nothing whatever to do with it. The success of the Germans in ousting us was due to the causes which I have just enumerated.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May I say, it was due very largely to the enormous subsidies which the German Government gave for research?
  Mr. ASQUITH: A very good thing, too. I have always maintained, with my hon. Friend, that there is no better investment for the public funds of this country than in the development of technical education. But the moral I

  1995
  want to point is this. When you have got an enterprise of this kind, the whole of the surplus profit, after reasonable terms have been made, should be given to research, and to the improvement of methods and the development of processes. I think the Government will be very well advised if, after consultation and co-operation with the various interests concerned, they take some security in that direction. There is one other point, and an equally practical one, which I should like to make. When you are setting up this machine, if you are going to set it up, for licensing, of course, the constitution of the Licensing Committee is a matter of the greatest importance, and it is a matter on which we shall all be free to express our judgment when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. If I may express my own opinion, it is this. I doubt very much whether the seriousness of the competition to which the British industry is exposed lie so much in the greater cheapness of the competing article as in its superior quality and attractiveness. After all, the relative cost of the particular colouring ingredient in our textile exports is comparatively small. It is far more important you should secure for the British textile manufacturer and merchant that he should have the freest possible access to every variety and character of dye. It is a much more important element than the actual cost of the dye itself and a licensing authority of this kind ought, so far as I can form a judgment, to keep that steadily in view, and to impose no obstacle of an; sort or kind to the importation into this country for the use by our manufacturers, and sale by our merchants, of these superior and more attractive dyes. The Germans ought not to continue to have a monopoly of it, I agree; but, so long as they can produce and export it, we ought to let our manufacturers have the freest possible access to them. Those are practical points which I venture to commend to the President of the Board of Trade, and I hope the Government will bear them in view.
  Mr. BRIGGS: In rising to criticise this Bill, I may say it is not because I have not the fullest sympathy with the object of its policy. With the object of its policy, the development of British dyes, I have
  1996
  the greatest sympathy on the main grounds of national security and trade security. But why I do criticise this Bill is because I am entirely opposed to its. methods. I think I am entitled to claim some right to address the House on this matter, seeing that the British Dyestuffs Corporation is in my division, and therefore, politically, I have been told I ought to support this measure. But my objection to the Bill is based on an instinctive dislike to bureaucratic interference with trade methods. We had licensing and prohibitive restrictions during the War, and it is now proposed to set up a new bureaucratic method to deal with it in the same way in peace time as in war time. We have not the same desire during peace time to put up with this interference that we did during war. With regard to the constitution of the Licensing Committee, I can hardly conceive any body of voluntary workers sitting down and prepared to work and to distribute these licences for a period of ten years. I might, perhaps, just refer to what Lord Emmott said in the Manchester Free Trade Hall on 12th December last year. He was Chairman of the Advisory Committee on restriction of imports, and he said he knew from experience that at the War Trade Department licensing could not be conducted fairly. I judge this Bill is being brought in to secure, in the first place, the dyemaking industry for national security, and, in the second place, to redeem a promise that was made to the British Dyestuffs Corporation. With regard to the promise made in the British Dyestuffs Corporation prospectus, I have no sympathy with the Government in any effort to redeem their promise, because I would say, What right had any Minister to commit this House to a promise of that character on a public prospectus?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): The Minister did not permit the prospectus until he had already announced the policy in this House.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. BRIGGS: I must plead, as a young Member, that perhaps I did not express myself as I ought to have done. I would suggest it was somewhat of a breach of privilege of this House to have put this promise on a prospectus. It happens that because of that
  promise in that prospectus many Members of the House feel their

  1997
  hands politically tied and would be prepared to act differently but for a sense of moral responsibility for that promise on account of which the public put money into the concern. My main point, however, is as to what is the actual view taken by users of these dyestuffs. Some hon. Members believe that because of the agreement come to between the manufacturers and the users all, therefore, is well. No doubt the makers will accept with open hands this Bill or any other Bill which would give them a sense of security. But what about the users? I have a memorandum here issued by the Colour Users' Association in which they state that if the Bill is brought in to establish a system of prohibition and licensing the Licensing Committee should be so constituted as to give adequate representation to the consumers, who should have a preponderating voice on it. At the end of the same document they say that the Council unanimously recommend the constituents of the Association not to support any Government measure unless it offers proper safeguards to the dye consumer. That is the position taken up by the dye consumer. He says he must be able to control this Licensing Committee, and I believe that without such control no single consumer would touch this Bill with even a long stick.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade told us he had been informed that 90 per cent, of the consumers accepted this Bill. I have come in contact with some of the larger consumers. The Parliamentary Secretary yesterday referred to the case of the Calico Printers' Federation, which represents 90 per cent, of the calico printing in this country. The Calico Printers' Association represents 60 per cent, of that 90 per cent., and they are absolutely opposed to this Bill. Sixty per cent, of the calico printers therefore are opposed, and the remaining 30 per cent, are by no means unanimously in favour. I happened to be present, by courtesy of the chairman, at the recent meeting of the Colour Users' Association, a body the members of which are, I am sure, as patriotic as any other class in this country. But they are afraid of this Bill, for when the chairman of the Association, at the opening of the meeting, brought forward a resolution supporting the protection of British dyestuffs for national security, the meeting only passed
  1998
  it after an hour's debate. It was to my mind evident that they feared there was some catch in it, and that if they committed hemselves to it it would be thrown in their teeth later on should they object to the Bill. Eventually an amendment was put, saying that it was not the right of the Committee to submit such a resolution. That Amendment was defeated by 40 to 15, but as altogether there were many more than this number present, there was no unanimity about that vote. Finally, a resolution was put to the meeting supporting the Bill, and the chairman declared it carried by an overwhelming majority; but he was compelled to withdraw the word "overwhelming," and, as the "Manchester Guardian" very rightly puts it, the majority was merely in the proportion of three to two. That represents then the united support which the colour users are said to be giving to this Bill.
  I should like to read a few sentences from a speech made by the managing director of Bradford Dyers' Association, Limited. He said his association thought that procedure by subsidy was the proper method, but the cost was too great; still in licensing there was machinery whereby subsidies could be applied, and therefore he still sticks to subsidies. Evidently he and his colleagues do not accept this Bill as final. If he thought it was intended to be final he said he would not be supporting it. But he looked on it as only the first stage of the machinery. In this matter we are frequently hearing of textile users. There is, however, another body of consumers of dyestuffs—the lake and paint manufacturers. We must remember this, whereas the textile users' percentage of ultimate value in dyes is practically 1 to 5 per cent., the lake and paint manufacturers' value in dyes used in this product is 80 per cent., and therefore it is of the greatest importance to them to get their dyes as heaply as possible. They are not small consumers of dyes. They practically use one-sixth of the total dye production of this country. There was a member of the Colour Association representing the lake manufacturers at this meeting last Friday who got up and supported this Bill, and when he sat down I said, "How can you support this Bill, seeing that prices are such a material factor to you?" His reply was, "We are going to have subsidies." This is the "unanimous" support this

  1999
  meeting is said to have given to this Bill. They did not know, they do not realise, what this Bill is going to be. Then there are the dye merchants. There is a big business done in this country by middlemen who buy dyes and sell them again to the smaller users. Clause 3 says:
  "Subject to compliance with such conditions as to security for the re-exportation of the goods as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose, this Act shall not apply to goods imported for exportation after transit through the United Kingdom or by way of transhipment."
  I take it that these goods can be brought here from Germany and kept in bond and re-exported. The business of these merchants is the buying and exporting of dyes. This Bill will put up the price of British dyes; there is no doubt about that. In consequence, these merchants will only buy German dyes, and this Bill gives them a free hand to do that, so that the whole export trade of this country can readily be confined to German dyes. The President of the Board of Trade made a comparison with the United States of America. I think he must either have forgotten or have been misinformed. The export trade in dyed textile goods in this country represents 80 per cent, of the whole production of the dyed cotton manufacturers, whereas the consumption in the United States is 80 per cent, of the United States production. What does that mean? The United States consumes 80 per cent, at home, whereas we live on our export trade, and in order to carry on that trade we must be in a position to have the lowest prices in the market and not the dearest. Therefore, I submit that comparison with America is not a useful one. I have an absolutely instinctive dislike to Government meddling with trade. I am a trader, and I learnt my lesson during the War. While I entirely support the protection of dyes, and realise to the fullest extent that we must have such protection, I would ask, why shift the burden to the shoulders of one section of the community, as you are doing by this Bill. It is a national matter, and the nation should deal with it. The money will have to be found. There is no disguising that fact. It will have to be found whether by this Bill, or by a Tariff Bill, or by a Subsidy Bill. Let the Government take their courage into both hands and deal with the matter boldly, and then we need not have any of that
  2000
  harassing interference which caused so much irritation among traders during the War. I have tried to explain why I am opposed to this Bill, seeing that I realise that protection must be given to the dye industry. I cannot support the Bill as it stands. I propose to put down some Amendments on the Committee stage, and the object of one of them will be to limit the operation of the Bill to three years. I do not like the Bill, but I do not see any alternative to it suppose that the Government intend to force it on us. If they do so intend, let its operation be limited for three years, for in that time they may not absolutely kill our trade, but before the end of the period the people will be so jolly well sick of the measure that they will refuse to allow it to be re-enacted. If my Amendment should be accepted it will remove a great part of my objection to the Bill.
  Mr. T. SHAW: I oppose this Bill on many grounds, and I will try and state my main objections as concisely as possible. Only two reasons are given as to the necessity for the Bill. The first is, that a promise given to certain shareholders should be kept, and the second is that it is vitally essential in the interests of the nation that this industry should be developed at home. Will this Bill secure the attainment of those two objects? In my opinion, it will not do so in the best possible way. There is, after all, a huge trade dependent on the production of dyes, and on the quality and price of those dyes depend, not only the sale of British textiles, but the prices of them to the very poorest members of the British Empire. The Indians have never been mentioned, although a very considerable proportion of our dyed cotton goods go to India and are sold to people who are the poorest in the world, so far as money is concerned. It is foolish to say, as has been said, that the extra price of dyed yarn means that cloth cost only so and so. Everybody knows that increase in the raw material actually increases the price sometimes three, four, and five-fold to the consumer of the finished article, and the story that 14 of a penny per yard in the cost of the dyes is little is away from the point, because it may become 1d. per yard at least before the actual cloth is sold to the consumer. That cloth, in many cases, is sold to a consumer whose

  2001
  weekly wages are in pence, not in shillings. The numbers of the British consumers, which are also the community, will, I hope, be taken into consideration by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Much has been made of the Licensing Committee. I see no provision in the Bill to give this power to the Committee to issue licences. That power is given not to the Committee but to the President of the Board of Trade, or whoever he may appoint. And with the applications, with the extraordinary number of shades and qualities applied for, it is impossible for this Committee to deal with them unless the poor person who desires to use dye is prepared to wait, six, seven, or eight months before he gets the licence. As a matter of fact, it seems to me a foregone conclusion that so far as the number of licences issued is concerned, the matter will be simply in the hands of a permanent official in the Government Department, and the Committee will be called occasionally to give advice. The real licensing work will be done by a permanent official. That is, as I say, in the Bill. I hope the President will be able to remove any misapprehension I may have on this point.
  Let me say a word about the whole question of dyestuffs. I am one of those who believes that key industries should be safeguarded. If any key industry is necessary for a nation in the time of emergency it is the business of the nation to see that that industry flourishes. So I start from common ground with the right hon. Gentleman who proposes the Bill The necessity for safeguarding an industry the absolute essentiality of keeping in being the industry necessary to national safety. Will the method of the President do it? I suggest that it is the worst possible method that could have been suggested. It makes no provision whatever for the development of the industry on scientific lines. Rather. I am afraid, by this licensing system and its cumberousness, does it make for inefficiency. If the proprietors have not the force of competition to face they will have no need to study to develop the industry. This Bill, in my opinion, makes for inefficiency rather than for efficiency.
  What does it do with regard to research work—on that side of the question which principally concerns the national safety? Nothing at all. Nothing in the slightest degree in the terms of the Bill will aid in
  2002
  developing research and the application of science to the dye industry. One of the principal arguments for the Bill, we have been told, is that this industry is a new industry and can easily be turned to war purposes if the emergency arises; but this Bill does not help the industry in that respect. It rather makes those concerned feel themselves safe from any competition and protected against it by this cumberous system of licences. This will tend to make them slacken their efforts and not go ahead and engage in research work as an industry ought to do. I have listened this afternoon to one of the most humiliating Debates in this House. It has disclosed our utter failure as an industrial nation, and as a Government. Whatever else the German Government was from 1874–5 it always had the common sense to realise that scientific knowledge was necessary, and it devoted money to scientific study. The dye industry did not go to Germany, because German workmen were better than our own. Nor even because the Germans were more inventive than we were. It went to Germany because there was a larger number of students owing to their educational system. It went to Germany because science was fostered and helped. It went to Germany because the German chemist, the German manager, the German employer, and the German business man were superior to our own. In no way will this Bill help us to develop the qualities that made Germany the greatest dye-producing nation in the world. There is no word in the Bill from beginning to end which will help to that desirable consummation, where British science will be thoroughly helped and fostered, where employers will combine together to help each other, and where everything that can be done will be done to make the industry efficient—there is not a word to that effect in this Bill.
  One of the first things said by the right hon. Gentleman was that the application for licences would fall to be decided by the Committee. I have already expressed my opinion on this to the effect that nothing in the Bill gives the Committee power to decide at all. The Committee is there to advise, and it is inherent in the circumstances that the Committee cannot possibly be the best of business men such as should form such a Committee, and be constantly sitting in London to issue licences. The whole thing will utterly break down if the Committee is supposed

  2003
  to be a deciding body in this matter of licences. If not, then I suggest that bureaucracy is what we are going to get instead of real administration and control by men who know the circumstances and know with whom they are dealing. We have a world-wide trade in goods that are dyed. Everybody knows that with a new shade and a new colour, a faster dye, those persons who can put the goods on the market at once secure trade. Where shall we be with these licences when the things which we cannot produce at all, that we do not know anything at all about producing, come to the front? We shall find them in India through other media than our own. We shall find that our big foreign trade-on which, incidentally, our exchange depends—grows less and less, whilst in London there is somebody who with conscientious and meticulous care arranges in such a way that the licences shall not be issued without proper consideration; so retarding the flow of business.
  There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the fleecing of the customer by companies that will have a monopoly if licences are not really issued. The poor consumer, the person who buys and wears things, has no protection whatever. What pledge is being given to the public against the company that is going to get protection? None at all! I make a present to the President of the Board of Trade of the suggestion that when he is carrying out the pledge that the Government gave to the people who invested their money—I have nothing against that—that he should discover and make clear the general public does not suffer as a result of him keeping a bargain that his predecessors made. Think, then, what influence will be brought to bear on the issue of licences. Does anyone doubt that at this day big commercial concerns have an influence in Government Departments? Does anyone doubt that the time will come when certain houses, certain firms, and certain users will be all claiming a licence for certain dyes, and that some will get them and others not? We are asking in the Bill for a state of things which is bound to bring trouble into the industry, and which certainly offers temptation, if nothing more, to favouritism of the very worst kind. Because of that, I am opposed to the principle on which the Bill is based.
  2004
  We are told that the President of the Board of Trade has the whole-hearted sympathy and acquiescence of the textile industry. I wonder what he means by the textile industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman ever give a thought to the hundreds and thousands of workers in it? I claim he has not the support of any comparable proportion of the workers in the Lancashire textile industry. If his idea of the industry is that it simply has to deal with the person who buys and sells the goods, and not the persons who work with their hands, then I cannot accept his definition of the industry. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give a little thought in future when he is talking about an industry to the people who are working in it, because he has absolutely no right to speak for them, and to say that they are in favour of it— no right whatever! I have heard about the shortness of the memories of Members of Parliament. On occasion they may be very short. Hon. Members forget the principles that they have preached for years, and in different circumstances get strangely different ideas from those, previously held.
  I have already referred to the pledges which the Government gave to the shareholders. I think those pledges ought to be honoured. If the Government gave to certain people the assurance that by taking shares they would be guaranteed against loss, the Government should be responsible to the fullest extent for that guarantee. But the question is this: Where to give the guarantee! There is a better way than the Government have adopted. If this trade is vital, there are two points of view in it. First of all, it is a key industry on which vast national industries depend, and, secondly, it is necessary for the defence of the Empire. If so, is it not better that private interest should be eliminated entirely, and that the nation should by itself, of its own-initiative, and without the private prompting, manufacture its minimum requirements, and enter into research work in universities and other places, so that the nation may be safeguarded in the future? [An HON. MEMBER: "Is not that bureaucracy?"] No, I suggest that would be common sense. Bureaucracy is when you have your official interfering in your affairs; common sense when you are looking after your own affairs. May

  2005
  I turn for a moment to the question of the difficulty that will exist not only with regard to Germany, but with regard to Prance and Switzerland, under this Bill? I want to point out that we can easily do an enormous amount of harm to our own dye industry by a too stringent system of licences. Everyone acquainted with the Lancashire cotton trade knows that there was a time when the woven goods were sent out of the country to be finished, and you can get exactly the same state of things again if you make your system of licensing too rigid. You could still have your goods woven here and finished in some other country. This is an evident and a real danger, and too much interference and too rigid a licensing system may easily lead to your dyeing and finishing being done in other countries. In this way you might develop the industries of India and France, and cripple your own in the process you are adopting by this Bill.
  I suggest the much better way of dealing with the problem would be the way I have already suggested. The control which Germany had in this matter at the beginning of the War is doomed now because we know the reason. If this Bill made provision for the thorough and efficient research work which is necessary for the development of scientific study in the question of dye production: if it made provision for accumulating the best knowledge that exists so far as the dye industry is concerned then I could vote for it; but all it does is to say to foreign countries, "We will keep your goods out," without making any, provision that the work shall be well done and research entered into; in fact the provision means that however inefficient the industry is carried on they will not be allowed to go under because the licences will keep everybody else out. That is one of the big dangers I see in this Bill. We were told that if we did not buy out the people in this industry who subscribed we should let the industry go to pieces. Personally I doubt whether this Bill will prevent the industry going to pieces. It will probably maintain the profits of the firms engaged in the industry, but there is no guarantee that they will not go to pieces. This measure gives no guarantee of efficiency from the first word to the last word.
  Let me say a few words on the question of German competition. I have already stated what I consider to be the reason
  2006
  for the success of the Germans in this industry. We can do what we like in the shape of licences and set up all the barriers we like, but if the Germans are much more efficient than we are they will get the export trade, and so long as they have the run of the markets of the world we shall have to work in competition with them. I am not prepared to see the great textile industries run a risk which amounts, I am afraid, almost to extinction. I am not prepared quietly to see a danger of that kind which I believe exists in this Bill. It is because that I believe there is that danger that I hope the House will not accept this measure. We were told that 2,000 men were out of work in the dye industry and that this was due to the influx of German dyes. Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that at least 100,000 weavers are unemployed in Lancashire who ought to be weaving the goods which those dyers want to keep thorn employed.
  I do not believe that the dismissal of those dyers has any more to do with the importation of German dyes than I have. The fact is that you have at least 100,000 weavers in Lancashire unemployed or partially unemployed, and the Lancashire cotton trade is one which has to be maintained almost wholly on exports. If you add to this unfortunate circumstance the difficulties of the dyeing trade, the difficulty is one which cannot be looked upon with calmness of equanimity. You have a state of unemployment in Lancashire which has never been known before. In Burnley out of 30,000 weavers only 10,000 are totally unemployed or on half or quarter wages, and that is in one small town. Can the President of the Board of Trade wonder that the people in Lancashire who know these things are rather suspicious about an academic discussion of this kind when they see the enormous difficulty at the present time of exporting their own goods.
  Sir R. HORNE: A considerable amount of German dyes have been imported, and if British dyes had been used instead then the British dyers would still have been employed.
  Mr. SHAW: That may be true, but the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the importation of those dyes had caused this unemployment. The looms which ought to be turning out the cloth are not work-

  2007
  ing and therefore the cloth is not going to the dyers to find them employment.
  Sir R. HORNE: The question remains where are the German dyes going?
  Mr. SHAW: They may not be going to the North at all. All these looms are stopped, and if the production is not going into the dye works the dyers are not dyeing them, and to say that on account of the importation of German dyes 2,000 dyers had been discharged is simply camouflaging the position. This discussion has been the most humiliating one we have ever listened to. We have listened to the gloomiest picture of an industry that it has ever been my lot to listen to, and the cause of it is that this country does not realise the vast importance of science in industry. Even yet we are not making the efforts on those lines which we ought to make, and I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, instead of trying clumsy, blundering schemes like this which will injure more than they will help, and which will hamper more than they will assist the stream of commerce, to devote his great abilities to teaching the country that only by real hard work, research, and science, can the industries of this country reach the position which they ought to occupy, and when we reach that position we need fear neither Germany nor any other country in the world.
  Mr. DOYLE: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is to be congratulated for two reasons, first, because of his admission that key industries should be protected, and, secondly, because of the admission he has made with regard to the protection of the shareholders who have invested their money in this industry. I do not follow the hon. Member in the toils and principles of nationalisation which he referred to in connection with this Bill. With regard to the question of unemployment, I fail to see the connection between his argument and the fact that there are 2,000 men unemployed in the dye industry in consequence of the importation of German dyes. It is perfectly obvious that the more foreign goods in connection with a particular trade you import into this country, in proportion that will react on those employed in that industry and will cause unemployment. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for
  2008
  Blackley (Mr. Briggs), who represents the place where these works are situated, I admire the originality of his speech, but I was looking all the time for some alternative solution of the difficulty. Here is this great industry situated in the hon. Member's constituency, and, while he gave a number of reasons why this Bill should not be passed, and why he did not intend to vote for it, I waited for what he was going to put in its place; but on that point he said nothing.
  I cannot understand from the point of view of the hon. Member why he is willing to see the absolute destruction of this new industry in his constituency, which would mean the throwing out of employment of a large number of workpeople. Yet the hon. Member stands by helpless and says, "I do not and cannot agree with this Bill." That has been the attitude taken up by a certain number of speakers who preceded the hon. Member for Blackley. Reference has been made to a circular sent out by the president of the Dye-makers' Association recommending a method of prohibition and licensing as the best method of safeguarding the dye industry, and pointing out the danger of industries of enormous importance being dominated by a source of supply over which they have no control. I should also like to say a word in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton). He also asked, "Is this Bill the best way of dealing with the difficulty?" and he dealt with the question from a great number of points of view. There, again, however, there was the absence of a solution and of any alternative to this Bill. One point he made was that, if the measure were passed, it would commit the users to the second best. Why? On the Committee that is to be set up the users will be in a majority. Assuming that the British product is not up to the mark, and is inferior in quality or too high in price, they will be able to say, "Your stuff is not what it ought to be; this German or Swiss stuff, or whatever it is, is ready to come in, and is either of superior quality or cheaper price, and it will come in." Therefore I cannot see why. the consumer should necessarily be relegated to the second best. On the point of subsidies, I think the House, in certain legislation and certain experience, has had a sufficient knowledge of subsidies not to recommend them in a case of this kind.

  2009
  The moment you give subsidies in an industry, you never know where it will end. If the subsidy you give is insufficient to keep the industry going, and if the industry and those who work it are slack, you would have to go on increasing the subsidy—there would be no other alternative. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) is to be congratulated on his speech this afternoon. The two objections to this Bill were from the political and the trade point of view. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely removed the political objection. So far as those who were opposing the Bill from the political point of view are concerned, I suggest that the Division might as well be taken now, because there is nothing further to be said on that side. The right hon. Gentleman stood by his promise and by the promises of Mr. Runciman, who was President of the Board of Trade. There remains the trade side, and I know it is being questioned whether there is a majority in favour of this Bill, as there was stated to be. How are you to arrive at a decision as to whether there is a majority or not? Surely it must be by the various representatives who are in a position, through their associations, to give a decision one way or the other. If that is so, it is obvious that the President of the Board of Trade is perfectly right in his claim that it is about 90 per cent.
  I want to say a word about the position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes). The hon. and gallant Gentleman, if I may say so, has taken a rather characteristically aggressive attitude in regard to this Bill, both in the House at the time when it was mentioned, and particularly outside the House. He is one who was returned to support this Government. He was pledged particularly on the issue we are discussing to-day; he accepted the manifesto which appeared under the name of Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law. I will read the part which refers to this matter in that manifesto:
  "One of the lessons which has been most clearly taught us by the War is the danger to the nation of being dependent upon other countries for the vital supplies upon which the life of a nation may depend. It is the intention of the Government, therefore, to preserve and sustain, where necessary, these key industries in the way in which experience and examination may
  2010
  prove to be the best adapted for the purpose."
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman subscribed to that manifesto. Not only so, but he stated in his election speeches and in making his appeal to the electors that when they voted for him they did not really vote for him at all, but for Mr. Lloyd George. He went further than that. Not only did he subscribe to this part of the manifesto that I have just read, but he put the question of key industries in a very prominent position in his election address. How he can come to the House, in view of those conditions and of the speeches he made, is a thing that he has never explained, at any rate, to his constituents. Of the organisations which combined to return the hon. and gallant Gentleman, one of the most powerful, and one of those which did the most for him, passed a resolution, after he had left the Government side, asking him to resign his seat. That invitation was not accepted. In view of that invitation, however, and of its being declined, I venture to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman not only does not represent his constituency in this matter, but he does not represent it upon any matter. He has had rather a varied political career. He was a member of the Labour party; he left the Labour party and re-joined the Liberal party; he left the Liberal party and joined the Coalition; he left the Coalition and joined the Liberal party again, and I have no doubt he will find consolation in the fact that there are many new parties and that the possibilities of the situation are not quite exhausted.
  What appealed to me forcibly in this Debate, and I have listened to every speech which has been made as yet, is that this Bill holds the field. Either on a question of urgency, and it is urgent, you are going to pass this Bill as it stands, in this House, and to get it through before Parliament rises at the end of the Session, or you are going to run the risk of the destruction of this mighty and necessary industry, and of the throwing out of employment of a great number of workpeople and of handing it over to Germany just as before the War. I look upon this industry as just as vital importance to this country as our Navy. In case of another war we should have to depend upon such agencies for chemical power, for explosives, and so on. If we allow this industry to be smashed and

  2011
  broken up, and if we become dependent once again on the Germans, we shall be in a great deal worse position than we were at the beginning of the present War, because we shall not have learnt by experience. For these reasons, therefore, although the Bill is belated and insufficient, and does not go quite far enough, I shall support it.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. WADDINGTON: I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that the Government were to be congratulated on having introduced this Bill. The opinion of those who are actively connected with the dye users is that the sooner the question is settled the better it will be for the interests of the trade. Much has been said in criticisms of the Bill, but little pointing out a better way of doing it. We know there are many objections to any form of Government interference in trade, but after a great deal of consideration this scheme of prohibition and licence has been adopted by the great majority of colour users in the country as being the least harmful. It has been said that the Colour Users' Association does not really represent the position of those who are in the industry, and that at a meeting in Manchester last Friday, out of over 150 persons present only 40 voted. The, hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Briggs), who made that statement to the House, forgot to tell the House that the representation of that association is limited. The right to vote is limited to certain members from the trade, and although there might have been that number of persons present yet the voting power was not so great. The hon. Gentleman also said there was a difference of opinion whether it was supported as a measure of security. The voting in favour of that was 40 votes to 4 against the amendment, so that that may be taken as fairly well representing the considered judgment, after fair discussion, of the Colour Users' Association. I happen to be in the position of being one of those whom the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle wished hon. Members to save from having any injustice done to them. He asked that they should do nothing which would jeopardise the textile trade, and that they should treat the textile people in a manner in which they would like to be treated. I am a colour user, interested in cotton
  2012
  manufactures. We use colours in various processes in dyeing raw cotton, and the bulk of our other productions are either used in what is known as piece dyeing or calico printing. So that, if there is to be any injury to trade by this particular measure, then, in supporting it, I should be voting for something which would directly injure myself. But I have every confidence that, so far from injuring trade, this Bill will do a great deal of good. Anything which will be the means of establishing a dye industry of a satisfactory character will render great service to the textile trade. I should like to put before the House some suggestions which have been made as to the formation of this Committee and its constitution and working when established. The scheme which has been considered by the colour users and dye makers is that there should be a chemist representing the dye makers and a chemist representing the dye users, and that any application for a licence would first go before those two chemists, and if they agreed in favour of a licence it would almost automatically be issued. If their joint decision is against the issue of a licence, on the ground that the article is available in this country, then, of course, it will be refused. But if there is a difference of opinion the Licensing Committee would be called together, and that would be where their work would begin. So all the suggestions of the Licensing Committee having to spend much time in the duties of their office are quite beside the mark, and will be quite unnecessary in actual operation.
  Another point which has been raised is as to getting the colours. The hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) spoke of the colour users not being able to get the particular dye which they needed, and of our trade in India, China, and South America being lost and the textile industry being ruined because of this difficulty of getting the colours. But what is happening to-day? A man prepares his particular design. He gets out the shades which he wants in that design. He will send his list of colours that he requires to the British Dyes Corporation, asking them if they can supply those colours. They send him the dyes which they are able to supply, and tell him that certain other colours can be got from either Switzerland or America or from Germany alone, so that

  2013
  the person who requires the colours is advised at the present time by the British Dyes Corporation as to where he can get them. That is intended to be carried on. The great misunderstanding which has existed throughout the country on this question is that there is to be prohibition of essential dyes. There is no suggestion of prohibiting any essential dyes. There is no suggestion of refusing admittance to this country of dyes which are necessary, and the very fact that this scheme has been adopted by those who represent the colour users of the country, and that they are satisfied with the safeguards which they have obtained, ought to be sufficient to commend the Bill to the House. We may be perfectly certain that those who are in the great textile trade of Lancashire are not going to lose their great predominance in skilled work and in beauty of design. They are going to have that safeguarded, and they consider that they have it safeguarded under this measure. But we have in Lancashire a great difficulty. Many of us remember the position in 1914. We remember how, when war broke out, we found ourselves in the most humiliating position that any great trade ever was in, when we found that we had no dyes and no dyeworks in the country that we could turn to, and we had practically to scour the world to find a pound or five pounds or a hundredweight of dyes to carry on our great textile industry. We do not want to go back to that position again. We want to feel sure, and we do feel sure, that, given the right amount of research, given the scientific application in industry, we are satisfied that our dycstuff industry and our chemical industry will not be the second best but will be equal to anything in the world.
  The hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Briggs) suggested that the experiment should be limited to a period of three years. But surely it is foolish to talk of three years for a great scheme of this sort. You could not get your chemists trained under five years. Therefore you are going to get hundreds of men entering upon university careers, studying chemistry to become competent in research work to bring the country up to its proper state, and you suggest that in three years they shall be thrown away from their work and that it shall be put down as useless. The only suggestion the hon. Member (Mr. Shaw) seemed to make was that of re
  2014
  search and scientific education. The Germans not merely gave scientific education but connected it with industry. You cannot fill your universities, you cannot open technical colleges and fill them with students for this particular class of chemistry and then, when they have finished their five years' course, tell them there is no work for them in this country and no industry to go to and they must go to America or Germany, as they have had to do in the years gone by. We heard this afternoon the example of the British Alizarine Company. I should like to give one or two more particulars about it. When Perkin discovered alizarine dye in 1868 it was discovered at the same time by the Germans. The two discoveries were registered within a day of each other in the two countries. But who developed the commercial position first? Perkin set to work, and in spite of the boasted supremacy of what the Germans can do, the British chemists and industrialists at that time produced the alizarine dye quicker than the Germans and had it on the market. We increased its production in this country for a few years, then the Germans went past us and stamped out Perkin's experiment. He had to give up his works. He was not supported as he ought to have been by the industrialists of this country. Then for seven years the Germans had the alizarine trade to themselves. In 1882 they lifted the price. They made £1,000,000 in one year and they put such an extortionate price on what they were willing to supply to Great Britain that they forced a rebellion amongst the dye users of this country and they re-established the Alizarine industry.
  But that industry had several years of struggle. It had to fight German competition, and unfair competition at that, and the British dye user had to consider whether it was to his advantage to give up the trade and be at the mercy of the Germans, or to lose money as a dye user. He went on producing his dyes and subsidising the Alizarine Company out of his dye-using plant. Then when the Germans found they could not beat the British Alizarine Company they approached them by negotiations and got them to join a convention. The result of joining the convention was that the British Alizarine Company was tied down. It could only make a certain weight of dyes and had to sell at a price

  2015
  fixed by the Germans. Surely it is no credit to an industry in this country, it is not a thing which is desirable from any point of view, whatever section of opinion we may represent, that there should be any industry in this country which is limited as to what its development can be, which is limited as to what it can produce, and which is dominated by a German convention which dictates its terms. That was the position of the British Alizarine Company, and we surely canot put that up as something which is to be admired and encouraged in these times.
  Another thing the Germans did before the War, which shows how they wore trying to destroy one trade and to prevent another. They had what is known with their big contractors as a falling-price Clause. They had a regular price at which they sold their goods, and the falling-price Clause was that if the British dye user could find an article which the British dyemaker could sell cheaper than they did, they automatically brought the price of the German dye down, and it was so objectionable in the use that was made of it, that a Huddersfield firm refused to quote to one of the largest firms in the country because they merely took advantage of the British dye-maker to get a cheaper price from the Germans. If a British merchant asked a price from a dyemaker, if it was less than the German price, they would give an order for five or ten cwt. and produce the invoice to the Germans, and the Germans reduced the price to that of the British dyemaker. How could you possibly expect any industry to withstand such unfair competition as that? I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I think it is very important that the House should make up its mind whether it is going to support this Bill on grounds of national safety or on economical grounds. Both arguments have been very generally used. I am opposed to the Bill on three grounds. The first is, that it is not sufficient to secure our national safety. The second is that it perpetuates bueaucracy in British commerce, and the third is, as we have learnt from the Debate, that it interprets the phrase key industry as
  2016
  being a justification for Protection, which has not yet been in issue before the people.
  It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  IRELAND.

    "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL" (ARRESTS).
    Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    I am sorry that once again we are compelled to take such advantages as the Rules of the House afford, to call attention to the affairs in Ireland that are not only of vital importance to the country itself, but to the principles of universal liberty everywhere. We have had in Ireland freedom of speech destroyed; trial by jury has disappeared; the right of public meeting no longer exists; curfew orders the conduct of citizens, and every vestige of real freedom has disappeared from the soil of the country. I regret to say that, however impressive may be the story which Irish Members have to tell in this House, and however powerful and unanswerable is their indictment of Government policy, it does not seem to affect the conscience or the opinion of this House. Fortunately for myself, however, I have neither respect for the opinion nor for the conscience of this House of Commons. There is a larger public feeling, a more conscientious national conviction, outside the portals of Parliament, and I am very glad to say that already the work which a few of us are doing in this House is piercing its way into the great centres of population throughout the country; and the recent manifestations which we have had of aroused and passionate indignation in England are at all events some reward for our labours in a hostile Assembly.
    The question which I desire to raise in the House this evening is the most recent and most indefensible of all the things that have occurred in Ireland in recent months. It is bad enough to wage war upon public opinion, to drag peasants before secret military tribunals, to shoot women on countrysides, and to carry on a policy of universal havoc and destruction

    2017
    every where throughout the land. There was left to us, at all events, the freedom of the Press; but now that seems to have gone, with all the other constitutional rights that have disappeared during the régime of the present Government. The "Freeman's Journal" is the great organ of national opinion in Ireland. It has a long and historic record. It has been the mouthpiece of constitutional opinion for Dearly half a century in Ireland, and men and women looked to it to express their views on all the things that were vital to their lives and liberties. It has, of course, like all great journals that speak the truth in England, been subjected to persecution at the hands of the Government. I know that the Government hate the "Freeman's Journal," because the Government hates everything in Ireland with which it disagrees. The "Freeman's Journal," for some months, has passed from being a peaceful and constitutional organ, to be the natural and articulate exponent of the deep-felt convictions and indignation of the people, and it has written strongly. It has spoken even violently against the Government, but I do not think that that ought to be considered a crime, because everyone in Ireland speaks violently against the Government. At the moment, however, when peace is in the air, when there seems to be a passionate longing for a cessation of all these hostilities in Ireland, when men of good will of all parties, not only in Ireland, but here in England, are with almost agonised hearts asking, "How long is this to go on?"— the "Freeman's Journal" comes out as one of the great apostles of peace, and pleads to the Irish people for peace, and pleads for peace to the Government. Here is an extract that has appeared in that journal within the last few days:
    "If Ireland is to be saved, a halt must be called, and the Government must try and find their way back to the road of bright reason and Christian principle. The Irish people, too, must pull all their forces together, and endeavour unitedly to find a way out. Men of extreme views are especially bound to take stock of the position and of its possibilities of good and evil. They should bring their statesmanship, as well as their courage and their readiness for self-sacrifice, to bear upon the issue. They must put their courage at the service of their wisdom. The people do not expect miracles; they would welcome peace with honour, peace with full freedom in those affairs that are their own. Again we ask every lover of Ireland and England, where will it end? Patience, not rebellion, should
    2018
    be the words of the people during the days of Advent; and, if Cardinal Logue's call is answered, the birth of the Prince of Peace may prove to be the birthday of Irish peace and freedom."
    At the time when this holy gospel of goodwill is being preached in this Journal, that has spoken with the passionate and indignant voice of Ireland, the Government drag the directors, and the able and brilliant editor of Ireland's most conspicuous journal before a court-martial.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I must point out to the hon. Member that by the terms of his own Motion, on which he obtained the leave of the House to move the adjournment, he does not claim to call attention to the prosecution, but only deals with matter's that are said to have happened after the trial by court-martial; and that, according to all our rules the discussion is confined to the Motion on which leave has been obtained.
    Mr. DEVLIN: That is quite right, and I am now coming to the question as it is presented in the Motion on which I secured leave to move the adjournment to-day. What is the crime that the "Freeman's Journal" has committed? A Mr. Quirke was arrested and taken to prison, and, as he alleged, was flogged by the uniformed officers of the Crown. It does not concern me in the least degree whether he was flogged or not, although before I sit down I shall hope to prove to the House that he was flogged. That, however, does not concern me. What does concern me is the case of these two directors of the newspaper, one of whom is a gentleman highly honoured in this country. I think he is a Welshman who went to live in Ireland, and, like many who have gone to live in Ireland, he became more Irish than the Irish themselves. He loved the people; he was attached to them, and he entered into the spirit of their aspirations and their hopes; and, when he went to Ireland, he became so indignant with the follies, the stupidities, the malignities, and the tyrannies of the Government, that he, with another public-spirited citizen in Dublin, bought the "Freeman's Journal." You cannot say that he was inspired by any insensate hate of this country, in which he amassed his fortune, and of which he was a very prominent citizen. He was a man who had a heart to feel. He was a Welshman and a Celt, and he

    2019
    could feel for Ireland. He bought this paper, and his companion in the purchase of the paper was a leading Dublin merchant. They bought the paper and held the paper, and these two gentlemen were dragged like common criminals before a court-martial and indicted for the publication of a photograph of this man, who alleged that he was flogged, and who, I think I can prove from the evidence of doctors, was flogged. It does not concern me whether he was flogged or not— that is not the question involved. The question involved is this: Here is a journal which did not publish an ordinary statement as it might have done in the pursuit of its ordinary journalistic functions, but, when it heard the allegation, proceeded not to publish the statement, but to investigate the allegation made by the man.
    They got a signed statement from Mr. Quirke. They brought in doctors to examine Mr. Quirke. They got a photographer to take a photograph of the wounds that were on the back of Mr. Quirke. They did everything that was possible, and took every precaution to ensure that the statements were accurate. They got the evidence of Dr. McDonnell, of Dr. Louis Byrne, the Coroner for Dublin, and of Dr. McArdle, one of the most brilliant surgeons in Europe; a man so distinguished in his profession that he is even called to America to perform operations. They had the evidence of these three men, and they proceeded to publish a photograph of this flogged citizen, but not because he complained, and not because he made an allegation against those who tortured him. They went to all this expense in order to test the accuracy of the man's statement, and for that they were indicted before a court-martial and brought for trial before a court-martial. I may say in this connection that the "Freeman's Journal" was summoned before another court-martial on another charge. What happened? Because the charge which the "Freeman's Journal" had made against the military of shooting a young, innocent man was true, they withdrew the charge against the "Freeman's Journal." They knew that even before a military tribunal the "Freeman's Journal" could prove its case. Therefore they withdrew the charge made against the "Freeman's Journal," without a single word of apo-
    2020
    logy. What they said to themselves was this, "we cannot prove this charge against the ' Freeman's Journal,' but we will make another charge against the ' Freeman's Journal.'" Then they dragged the proprietors of this journal, and the editor, before a court-martial upon the charge which I have described to the House. Is there any newspaper in the United Kingdom that would have taken the precautions which the "Freeman's Journal ' took to test the accuracy of its information before they published it to the degree that the "Freeman's Journal" did in this case?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going beyond the terms of his notice, which I hold in my hand. His whole motion is covered by the words "after the trial by court-martial." The question of the justice or otherwise of the trial does not now arise. Will the hon. Member keep within the terms of his Motion as to what happened after the trial by court-martial?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, I am doing that now. Even within the narrow limits of the Motion on which I secured the adjournment of the House, I think this matter is of such vital importance, not only to Ireland, but to the whole Press of the three kingdoms, that I am entitled without going into details upon the question to discuss this matter to the extent to which I have ventured to deal with it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Not beyond the strict terms of the hon. Member's own Motion. That was the notice on which hon. Members have voted and on which the Government have prepared their reply.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As I hope to take part in the Debate, may I ask this question? Would it not be in order to show that there was good ground for doubt in the case brought forward and that, therefore, these two gentlemen, the proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal," should have been released on bail and not have had to undergo the indignity of incarceration in prison? Would it, therefore, not be in order, briefly, to outline the charge made against them and the evidence brought against them and their evidence repudiating it?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Certainly not. That raises the whole question of the trial. If that had been the purpose of the Motion, it ought to have been included in

    2021
    the notice. That might have affected Mr. Speaker's judgment. I do not know. We must confine ourselves within the limits of the notice which the hon. Member moved.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What I want to impress upon the House is this: Have we reached that stage in the conduct of our public affairs that a newspaper which publishes a statement, and which goes beyond what any newspaper has ever gone in vindicating the accuracy of its statement, as was done in this case, should be punished? Was there ever so cruel an attempt to crush a great newspaper and to punish journalists than this transaction, which I am exposing this evening? You ask me to come to the question of what happened at the court-martial. That is what I am coming to.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: "After the trial." Those are the words.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, after the trial. What happened after the trial? [Laughter.] Intense merriment from the Coalition! Their hearts rejoice that we are not allowed to tell the whole story. If we are not allowed to tell the whole story in this House there is a larger constituency outside this House. They think they are free from the influences of public opinion outside this House, but there never was a Government on those benches that could ultimately afford to despise public opinion based on humanity in England or elsewhere. These men were indicted on six counts. They were found not guilty on four counts and guilty on two counts. The counts on which they were found guilty were not that the allegation made was untrue, but that the publication might tend to create disaffection amongst law-abiding citizens. After the court-martial had stated its view, and before it promulgated its decision, these three gentlemen were dragged by the military and put into a military lorry and taken to Mountjoy Prison. They had attended the court every day. They were not even asked to give bail. They were not men who would run away from any charge made against them. They had nothing to defend but the honest action which they took in exposing an infamy which, if I were allowed to go on, I think I could prove. Before sentence was delivered, before even the decision of the court-martial finding them guilty was submitted to whatever tri
    2022
    bunal ultimately determines the final decision, they were put into a military lorry, brought off to prison, and were not allowed even to apply for bail; and most extraordinary of all, the Judge Advocate-General who, I understand, is the prosecutor in these cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—a member of the Court —actually went with the legal represen tatives of the defendants to the military headquarters—
    Major O'NEILL: May I correct a misapprehension. The hon. Member says that the Judge Advocate-General went somewhere. There is only one Judge Advocate-General. He is in London. The gentleman to whom the hon. Member refers is the Judge Advocate, who was present in the Court.
    Mr. DEVLIN: My hon. and gallant Friend knows these military terms better than I, but the Judge Advocate, the representative of the military, went with the defendants' Counsel. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not find this a source of amusement.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I find nothing a source of amusement in these matters.
    Mr. DEVLIN: He can very well understand that I am not as competent to describe these functions as he is, but he understands perfectly whom I mean. This gentleman accompanied the lawyers for the defence to military headquarters to appeal to allow these gentlemen to stand out until sentence, if any, was imposed on them, and yet they were subject to this indignity of being dragged along on this military lorry by uniformed officers of the Crown and put in prison before any sentence was imposed on them. According to your ruling, Sir, and I confess it is an extraordinary ruling, because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The ruling is only based on the hon. Member's own writing. I have it here in front of me.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I do not question your right to give that ruling. I only say that this case has aroused tremendous public interest. Eminent doctors swore before this court-martial that this man was flogged, and for mentioning that fact and publishing his photograph the of this paper, men of distinction in the

    2023
    literary and commercial life of Ireland, and the distinguished editor, are dragged before a court-martial, after all they had done to secure accuracy in the report, and are then found guilty, and after they are found guilty, before they are sentenced, they are dragged away to prison in this motor lorry by the military. The incident stands by itself as a striking example of the sort of tortuous performance that is being carried on in Ireland to-day. I beg hon. Members of this House, apart altogether from politics, to realise what all this means. It may be an Irish newspaper to-day. It may be an English newspaper to-morrow. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman declare that many of the statements upon which we based our questions in this House were false. We took these statements from English newspapers. Not one of these newspapers has ever been prosecuted, although they have never attempted to inquire into the accuracy or otherwise of the statements. Here is a paper that goes to enormous trouble to prove the accuracy of its statements, and its two directors and editor are dragged into the dock and then taken to prison.
    I do not know what is to be the result of it if you are going to tolerate these things in Ireland. It is our day to-day. It may be your day to-morrow. Trial by jury has been destroyed, the right of public meeting has disappeared, secret military tribunals have been requisitioned instead of the ordinary constitutional methods of administration and justice. There is no law in the country except the law of the military lorries. If you are satisfied with it, then maybe your day will come soon. I read at the commencement a declaration of policy in the "Freeman's Journal." It was an eloquent plea for peace, an impressive appeal not only to the Government but to Irishmen in Ireland. I hope that that is not a crime. There are many forces to-day at work to destroy that hope of peace. I believe that to bring about peace in Ireland between the two nations would be one of the highest and most beneficent tasks to which patriotic men could set their minds. But if you are going to watch and stealthily seize the writers of these eloquent pleas for goodwill and amity between nations, if you are lying in wait to watch every chance thing that may occur, in order to indict
    2024
    and place in the dock men who plead for goodwill and friendship between the two nations, then your task to bring about peace will be just as difficult as your path to create and maintain and foster war. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman immediately to release these gentlemen as missionaries of peace and goodwill and prove to the House of Commons that, instead of trying to create fresh difficulties and impregnate the body politic in Ireland with new poison, he is determined to encourage every decent attempt that is made to bring about unity and goodwill between the two nations.
    Captain REDMOND: I beg to second the Motion. At the outset, I desire to ask whether by your ruling no allusion is to be made to the proceedings during the court-martial? If that is your ruling, I fail to see how one can argue about the subsequent events without going into matters which led up to those events. What took place was this: The Dublin newspaper—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member asked me a question. I thought I had already answered it. The limited discussion is not due to any action of mine, but to the action of the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) in placing a question before the House this afternoon. In that question the hon. Member said nothing about the prosecution. The question deals solely with certain incidents after the trial by court-martial. I allowed the hon. Member a reasonable latitude. We must not raise the whole question of the right or wrong of the prosecution or the conduct of the trial.
    Major O'NEILL: With regard to your ruling, is it not the fact that this case is really still sub judice. In the case of a court-martial, the finding, whatever it may be, is not a finding at all until it has been confirmed by the proper military authority. In this particular case the proceedings have never been confirmed, so that, as a matter of fact, the whole of this discussion is a discussion upon a prosecution which is at this moment sub judice.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On that point, I am not familiar with these courts in Ireland or in this country, and I could not answer that question; but leave has been given to move the

    2025
    Adjournment, and therefore the House may proceed to debate within the terms of the Motion on which leave was given.
    Captain REDMOND: I am largely in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Neill) in what he has said. I wish to put a definite question to the Chief Secretary and to the Attorney-General for Ireland. By what authority are these two gentlemen detained in custody pending the promulgation of the decision of the court-martial? I do not pretend to be an expert on military law, but I happen to have had occasion to look up the Army Act and the King's Regulations, and I challenge the Chief Secretary to quote to this House any authority either from the Army Act or from King's Regulations whereby a person charged before a court-martial, who has not previously held in custody, shall be placed in custody pending the promulgation of the sentence of that court-martial. Here we have not only a case of the Government outstepping the ordinary law of the land by instituting courts-martial instead of the common Courts, but they have out-Heroded Herod by outstepping the rules and regulations of courts-martial themselves. These two newspaper proprietors were eminent citizens of Dublin. The Government or the authorities at General Headquarters, whoever and whatever they may be, permitted these two gentlemen during the trial to go about as ordinary citizens, but before the case had concluded they were suddenly seized; their bodies were snatched and they were escorted to gaol. Why did the authorities take that course seeing that they had not even asked for bail before, and had allowed the two gentlemen to go at large? We know pretty well in Ireland that anything can be done in the name of law and order. I would like to see the same treatment meted out to the proprietors of an English journal in this country. The Government dare not take such a course here.
    The counts upon which these Gentlemen were found guilty were "spreading disaffection in Ireland." I am not going to question the finding of the Court. Suppose that a similar prosecution had been instituted in this country against the "Daily News," which has been publishing for a considerable time statements
    2026
    as to acts of murder in Ireland; and suppose that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has in vehement and in uncompromising terms denounced reprisals, were prosecuted and brought before a court-martial. Suppose they had been acquitted on four out of six counts and had been found guilty on two counts, would the Minister responsible to this House act in the way that the Minister responsible to this House has acted in relation to the proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal?" He would not dare to take such a course. Every honest thinking Englishman views with horror and disgust the methods employed by the Dublin Castle or other authorities in Ireland. The "Freeman's Journal" was found guilty of publishing a statement which at the court-martial subsequently was sworn to by the person who originally made it. It was not contradicted there, except for the Officers of the Crown. The journal took every precaution; it went out of its way to obtain medical testimony as to the accuracy of this young man's statement, and it bonâ fide published what it regarded as a fact. What other course could the "Freeman's Journal" adopt? How could the "Freeman's Journal" be held up for publishing a statement which has since been sworn to be accurate by the maker of that statement? I do not believe that in the whole course of coercive or repressive measures in either England or in Ireland there is any precedent for the course taken in regard to the "Freeman's Journal." I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce a single precedent where a newspaper published a statement and where the proprietors and editors were arrainged before a court martial and where, before the promulgation of the sentence or before the court-martial was over, the defendants were seized by armed forces of the Crown and held in custody.
    Why should the "Freeman's Journal" be penalised for throwing light according to its own information and after making exhaustive inquiries, very exhaustive indeed, upon the Irish situation any more than English newspapers, such as the "Manchester Guardian" or even the "Daily Mail" which have been doing so in this country. What authority is there under the Army Act or King's Regulations, and on whose initiative was this special course taken. We have been told

    2027
    that the Judge-Advocate, who is not counsel for prosecution or defence, himself accompanied the defendants' counsel to G.H.Q. and pleaded with G.H.Q. in Dublin that they should be allowed their liberty now as during the trial, and that they should not be placed in custody before the sentence was pronounced. What do we understand by G.H.Q.? Who is G.H.Q. in Ireland? Who is the final arbiter? Who is the gentleman sitting in Dublin Castle or elsewhere who decided with a wave of his hand to do away with all previous King's Regulations and Army Acts, and that pending the promulgation of the decision of the Court that these estimable gentlemen should be placed in gaol as common criminals. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now see the error that was committed, and not only a political error but a legal one. From what I can understand the seizure of these gentlemen was strictly illegal, impolitic I am certain, and another instance of the gross, if not mischievous, blundering of the present Government in their attitude towards the general peace and welfare of Ireland. We were led to hope that negotiations were about to take place or were taking place. The Prime Minister did not go out of his way to deny that they were taking place or that he wanted them to take place to bring about peace in Ireland and peace between Ireland and this country. That is what we are working for, and that is what you should be working for. But I am afraid the attitude of the Government in regard to this particular instance only goes to show the Irish people once more that the present British Government does not want peace but war in Ireland.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Let me, first of all, say a word of explanation with reference to a remark which fell from the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin). I see nothing amusing in the condition of Ireland, or in the condition of Ireland since I became Chief Secretary, and I hope I have never made, from this Box or elsewhere, any remarks which could be at all regarded as flippant. Both hon. Gentlemen who addressed the House made an appeal for peace. Nobody is more anxious than the Chief Secretary and His Majesty's Government for peace—
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Oh!
    Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Keep quiet!
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: But before we can have peace, murders must cease, murderers must be tried, and arms must be surrendered—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must again remind the House that we must confine ourselves strictly to the terms of the notice on which leave was given, and not refer to wide generalisation.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was tempted to the remarks I made by the appeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The issue raised to-night is a very simple one, namely, whether a certain court-martial in Ireland was justified in remanding in custody, pending the confirmation and promulgation of the sentence of that court-martial, the two proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal" and the editor of that journal. That is the whole question. The court-martial came to its conclusion after seven days' trial, extending over a period of nearly two weeks, and, on coming to the conclusion of the trial, it followed the normal procedure and remanded the defendants in custody.
    Captain REDMOND: Not normal!
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, normal procedure. Every hon. and gallant Gentleman who has been a member of a court-martial will know that what I am saying is perfectly in order, and strictly in accordance with the facts. I will state it again. Where an accused person, on the conclusion of his trial, may be sentenced to imprisonment, he is detained in custody pending the confirmation and promulgation of his sentence. That is an accurate statement of the procedure of courts-martial.
    Captain REDMOND: What is the right hon. Gentleman quoting from?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was quoting shortly, and I hope clearly, the procedure. I can refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Article 648 of the King's Regulations, and to Regulation 68, Sub-section (6) under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act. The hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) was successful in passing an

    2029
    examination on the King's Regulations at one time.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to reading that Regulation?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: None at all—
    "Commitment for safe custody. A detention barrack or barrack detention-room may be used for the safe custody of a soldier who is remanded for trial by court-martial."
    Let me remind the House that under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act the House has brought into existence these courts-martial in Ireland.
    Captain REDMOND: May I point out that none of these gentlemen is a soldier, and in the second place they have not been remanded previously, but were allowed out, not even on bail. They were absolutely free, and my point is that then they were suddenly pounced upon, and put into custody without any authority whatever.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will finish the article, and let me point out that the word "soldier" here includes everybody who now comes before a court-martial in Ireland.
    Mr. W. THORNE: They are all soldiers.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, in Ireland they are all soldiers if they come before a court-martial. I will continue—
    "for the safe custody of a soldier who has been remanded for trial by court-martial or who has been tried and is awaiting promulgation of the findings and sentence of the court-martial."
    It goes on to deal with the accommodation to be provided, and so forth, but there is nothing further in it that deals with the legal question. The authority of the court, therefore, cannot be questioned. The procedure of the court is strictly normal and in order, and I do not think can be questioned by anybody who knows anything about courts-martial. The authority in the matter is the convening officer, and the convening officer in this case is the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland. It is not accurate to say that the Judge-Advocate appealed for the release from custody of the defendants. He made no such appeal. The appeal was made by the learned and distinguished counsel who represented the defendants, who was one of the most dis-
    2030
    tinguished Members of this House for many years, Mr. Tim Healy.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What was the Judge-Advocate doing there?
    Captain REDMOND: He went with him.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am glad to see the spirit of comradeship developing in Ireland. The Judge-Advocate went with counsel to the defendants to the headquarters of the Irish Office as a matter of courtesy, in order to show clearly and to convince the learned counsel for the defence that the Court of which the Judge-Advocate is the adviser acted within its powers and with proper authority.
    Captain REDMOND: Does the Judge-Advocate himself say that that is the reason why he went?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, generally he does in a telegram I have received from Dublin to-day.
    Captain REDMOND: Read it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. Is it not the custom of this House, when a document is quoted and a challenge is made to produce it, that it should be produced?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not hear the Chief Secretary quote from any document. He referred to the general purport of a telegram.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The purport of the telegram was given in the statement that generally he agreed with what my right hon. Friend had said. In those circumstances, is it not in order to ask for the exact words to be read to the House?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Certainly it is in order to ask for it. I thought the point put to me was whether I should order it to be produced, and that is the point on which I said "No." Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to ask for it.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Does it not go a little further, and has it not been always ruled by everybody who has presided over this House that no Minister of the Crown shall be entitled to quote from or give the substance or the general purport of any public document without producing the

    2031
    whole public document before the House? I can give 50 instances in which a quotation by a Minister of the Crown of a document or the purport of a public document has been ruled as requiring its production.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is correct so far as "quoting" is concerned, but not in regard to "stating the general purport." That is the difference, and all the precedents have been cases in which a quotation was made.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will resume.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Read the telegram.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would as courteously as I can insist on putting the case in the way I think best.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: In the way that suits you.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In the way in which I can best inform the House. This court has been criticised to-day, but I must confess it is something novel in the history of the House of Commons to criticise any court, more especially as the matter that has been raised by this Ad journment Motion is still, as my hon. Friend behind me has pointed out, sub judice. This Adjournment is moved to discuss the action of the judiciary in Ireland—
    Mr. DEVLIN: For Heaven's sake, have sense!
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: To discuss the action of the judiciary in Ireland in the course of the administration of the law, and while the particular case referred to is still sub judice. These courts were constituted by this House, and are composed of British officers. At least five members are required for such a court. This trial and the whole of the proceedings of the trial were held in public. Widespread interest has been taken in the proceedings, and there was a big array of Pressmen present representing Irish, English and Continental newspapers, so that there was no hole-and-corner proceeding about this, nor indeed is there about any of the courts-martial that sit under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: You exclude the relatives and the lawyers.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reference to some general remarks as to the liberty of the Press, I have not, while Chief Secretary for Ireland, suppressed a single newspaper.
    Mr. DEVLIN: They were all suppressed before you came.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Although very serious charges were made against newspapers, and were the subject of questions in this House, the initiative of bringing those newspaper proprietors and editor before a court-martial were taken, as all these proceedings must be taken, by the military authority of the district in which the court-martial is held. Newspaper proprietors and editors are not above the law in Ireland. The law in Ireland, I can say confidently, is impartially administered, and there has been no serious criticism upon the fairness of these courts-martial that were set up a few months ago by this honourable House.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am bound to apply the same rule to the right hon. Gentleman as I applied at the initiation of this discussion. The right or wrong of these trials does not arise. It is not within the terms of the Motion.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: May I say, in conclusion—and this is my last sentence, and I hope it will be considered in order—the House of Commons is a branch of the Legislature. Courts-martial in Ireland are parts of the Judiciary of the Realm, and I always thought, and think still, that it is outside the functions of Parliament to interfere with the judiciary, especially when cases are sub-judice.
    Mr. THOMAS: In three sentences, I want to ask the Chief Secretary, above all, not to allow this Debate, or the circumstances leading up to the Debate, to prevent the Government taking advantage of the opportunity that is now offered. I do not know how many Members of this House read the "Freeman's Journal," but they will have observed the efforts made lately for a real understanding between England and Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Mr. Deputy Speaker will determine when I am out of Order. The Motion for the Adjournment deals with the arrest of certain people controlling the "Freeman's Journal." I am merely indicating

    2033
    to the House that those who were arrested, those who were punished, those who are the subject of this Debate, have recently contributed much towards a settlement of the Irish Question, and, therefore, it is obvious to the House that the incident which we are now discussing must of necessity have affected their policy. All I want to urge upon the House, and upon the Chief Secretary, is that, notwithstanding the bitterness that must be engendered by this action, by this prosecution, by the treatment received by those who are anxious for peace, the Government, at least, will not allow these incidents to prevent them exploring every avenue of peace that is open.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am quite disposed to give credit to the Chief Secretary for wishing to treat this matter in a spirit of courtesy. It is not his courtesy that is wanted. My hon. and gallant Friend puts the word "candour" into my mouth. I will not say that, but I say that the Chief Secretary is the slave of conditions over which he has no control. It is all very fine for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is the ruler of Ireland. Socrates was the ruler of the philosophy of Greece, but Xantippe was the ruler of Socrates. In the same way, with his good intentions and good sense of his own dignity and responsibilities, let me tell the Chief Secretary I was never more convinced, from his lame, his apologetic, and, in some respects, his not quite Parliamentary speech of this evening, that he is the creature of forces more powerful than himself. I have used the word "unparliamentary." As you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were kind enough to confirm the statement I made, after some years' of experience in this House, that there never had been an example where a document was quoted by a Minister that the House has not insisted on the production of the document, I need not labour that point any more. But supposing that the somewhat narrow line which you, Sir, made between the quotation of the exact words of a public document and an allusion to its general purport, was, as I am bound to assume, a good point, I want to put it to the Chief Secretary, was it candid, was it dealing fairly with the House and with us, who are inquiring into the matter, to give the general purport of a telegram from one of his subordinates without producing the
    2034
    telegram? I do not want to draw any violent conclusion, still less to say anything unnecessarily acrimonious, but I am driven to the conviction, from the fact that the Chief Secretary quoted the purport of that telegram, and refused to give the whole telegram, that the telegram would justify our conclusion that the Judge-Advocate was against the proceedings taken by the court-martial.
    I come to the action of the court-martial. I know the Chief Secretary's task is difficult, and I assure him I do not want to make it more difficult, so far as he is trying to do it righteously and in the proper spirit; but I could gather from every word the Chief Secretary said, and from every word he left unsaid, that he does not approve of these proceedings. He is bound to make the best defence he can, and, if he will allow me to say so, I think he takes a false conception of his duties to this House and to himself. I think that if he feels the military authorities in Ireland have done wrong, he ought to say so, and he ought to correct their proceedings, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman, in the most serious spirit, that if he allows the guidance of affairs in Ireland, especially at the stage they now have apparently reached, to pass out of his hands, and out of the hands of the civil representatives of the Crown into the hands of militarists and military men, then every effort of his to produce goodwill and reconciliation between the people of England and Ireland will fail. One might judge of the real opinion of the right hon. Gentleman by the defence he put up. What was his defence? He read out an extract from the King's Regulations. I am not a lawyer, still less am I a military lawyer. I am not able to say that the subtle interpretation put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman would coincide with that of a trained lawyer with military experience. I can put my own rough interpretation on that Article. To my mind it dealt with the case of a soldier on trial before a court-martial in the ordinary way, possibly at the front —a disciplined soldier. I put it to the House that rules which are necessary and inevitable to deal with a soldier under discipline at the front in the middle of a campaign are inapplicable to the cases of well-known civilians, whose character I will refer to later on. The case dealt with according to my interpretation of this Article of the "King's Regulations is that of a soldier who might desert or disappear

    2035
    when the court has decided against him, and who when sentence came to be passed, might not be in his place. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's extremely elocutionary reading of the Article was interrupted, but I heard enough to gather from it that the Article went into particulars as to the particular barrack room or quarters in which, for the moment, the soldier might be imprisoned. He could be put into a guard room or a mess room, or any other room. All that shows that the Article contemplated contingencies that might arise on the battlefield, and was not intended to apply to civilians put on their trial for more or less civilian offences.
    The right hon. Gentleman in the stress of his servitude to the military authorities in Dublin was compelled to justify the application of an Article dealing with the necessities of the battle front to the case of civilians. He also fell back on another argument. He said that this Article must apply to the case of these two gentlemen because—and I do not think I ever heard a more astounding doctrine laid down by anyone in my experience—"soldier" includes everybody who comes before a court-martial.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In Ireland.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Did the right hon. Gentleman say "in Ireland"?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Ah, in Ireland! "I thank thee, Jew, for that word." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not making any racial statement. That is a quotation from Shakespeare, and I mention it for the information of hon. Members opposite. "Soldier" includes everybody who comes before a court-martial! That is the original statement. Since which an Amendment has been carried "in Ireland." And that is the reason that the writers in the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Daily News," who made statements quite as strong as those contained in the "Freeman's Journal," against the conduct of the soldiery and the Government stand free to-day, without the right hon. Gentleman daring to take action either civil or military. "'Soldier' includes everybody who comes before a court-martial—in Ireland."
    2036
    That is a new doctrine of Liberalism preached by the right hon Gentleman.
    Mr. J. JONES: Baron von Greenwood.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: What is the ground on which a man or woman is refused bail in any Court of Law? It is usually that the court does not feel certain of the accused's appearance to receive sentence. Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that that apprehension applies to these two gentlemen? I saw Mr. Hamilton Edwards one day last week. He is a very old friend of mine. He is not an Irishman, but a Welshman. I am sorry that that statement of nationality seems to excite some horror among hon. Members opposite. I should have thought that it would have appealed to their respect and admiration. He is a Welshman.
    Mr. J. JONES: And none the better for that.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: And none the worse. He is a Welshman. He was formerly member of a Conservative Club in the City. He went over to Ireland, and, instead of going from light to darkness, from the National Liberal Club to the Constitutional or the Junior Carlton, he fell into the hospitable embraces of the national cause in Ireland, and, like many Englishmen who have gone over there, he has become more Irish than the Irish themselves. He was here last week. I asked him to stop the evening with me. He replied that he was going to travel back that night, in order to be present at the court-martial the following morning. Has there been any occasion when the court-martial was sitting when he has been one second late? Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think of Mr. Hamilton Edwards, a courageous man, a man with property which could be seized— there was the smallest risk of his running away? He does not. He is silent. The hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite—including the Orangemen from the suburbs of Kensington—they do not treat this question in the serious spirit of the Secretary of State. All these moon-faced individuals find nothing but a joke in this tragedy of Ireland! Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Hamilton Edwards might have run away? He does not. Does he suppose that Mr. Martin Fitzgerald might have run away? His home, his family, his property, are in

    2037
    Dublin! Of course the right hon. Gentleman does not. Then what was the reason for sending them to gaol? The reason was to humiliate them, to terrorise them, as the rest of the people of Ireland are terrorised. And at what a time is this done? At a moment when everybody is looking for a way out of the horrible, tragic picture that Ireland and England present to the world to-day.
    I can speak freely on this matter. I negotiated with the British Government in Ireland for the last time three years ago. I have never negotiated with the Government since and never will. That task must be taken up by men whom Ireland has chosen to be their representatives and by the Government itself. I look on, but I do so with sympathy and with hope. Is there a man in this House that does not look with sympathy, at least, if not with hope, to any attempt to bring to an end this hideous, bloody, and terrible state of affairs which makes something like a Corsican vendetta between your race and mine; and at the very moment when the Prime Minister seems honestly to be doing—so far as I can gather from his public utterances—the Prime Minister, and everybody else, is seeking to explore some ground of hope and reconciliation—that is the very moment chosen to strike down, insult, and put into gaol the two men who, according to the quotations made by my hon. Friends from their newspapers, are amongst the most powerful and eloquent in their appeal to the good sense and the heart of Ireland to hold out to England something like the olive branch of reconciliation.
    Major O'NEILL: May I be allowed to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down upon the extraordinary ability with which for a quarter of an hour he has succeeded in keeping strictly within your ruling, Sir, and yet referred to such matters as Welshmen going to the Constitutioned Club and quotations from Shakespeare. This is remarkable, even in view of his long Parliamentary experience. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I think, strayed a little bit near to the bounds of Order. I do not propose to do so. I shall keep strictly within the ruling you have laid down to keep discussion to the question at issue. I do not
    2038
    rise to-night as an Irish Member. In my judgment it is not really an Irish question at all. The Resolution before the House is a Resolution aimed at the administration of military law, whether in Ireland, Mesopotamia, Egypt, or any other part of the world, because at this time under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act these trials in that country are held under the military code of law. I have had considerable experience in the administration of military law, and that is really the sole reason why I am intervening. The Chief Secretary explained that every trial by court-martial has to be confirmed by the proper military authority, and until the sentence of that Court is so confirmed there is no finding and no sentence at all. If I may say so with respect, I think that perhaps had you, Sir, more fully appreciated this point of military law you might have felt less inclined to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork. The full meaning of military law unquestionably is a very difficult matter for those who have not been intimately associated with it. But this matter, as it is, is now absolutely sub judice. This trial is just as much sub judice as is the case of a man who is on his trial for a crime and who, when the jury have retired to consider their verdict, goes into the cells below. The court-martial is no more over in this case than would be the trial of the criminal while the jury were deliberating. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain Redmond) knows that is so.
    Captain REDMOND: I quite agree with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said about the trial not being concluded. Where I disagree with him is in his parallel between the case of the criminal going back to the cells and the case of these gentlemen who were never detained before, and who in the middle of the trial were pounced upon and brought in by armed forces and placed in custody. That is the difference between the two cases.
    Major O'NEILL: May I give this analogy? Take a person who has been tried under the criminal law, and who is awaiting the decision of the jury, and who before the trial began was on bail, would he be let out while the jury were considering their verdict? Of course he would not. That man is on bail. He is free just as much as these men are free until trial. [HON. MEMBERS: "No,

    2039
    no!"] I think my analogy is perfectly correct—the man who is neither free or who is on bail before trial begins, and then before its conclusion: is it seriously said that any court would allow that man to go free? That is the exact legal position in regard to these gentlemen who are to-day in custody in Dublin. I condole with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Devlin) in having found so tame a Motion to bring forward. I daresay he thought that he would be able to raise great questions of Irish policy and Irish disorder. I am glad that this Debate, as it was bound to do, has merely turned upon the legal technicalities on this issue, and on
    that question there is no doubt whatsoever but that the court-martial that tried these people is strictly within its right in keeping them in custody until their sentences are confirmed and their trial, therefore, completed.
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose
    Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 62.

    Division No. 384.]

    AYES.

    [9.46 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Atkey, A. R.

    Dewhurst. Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Donald, Thompson

    Jesson, C.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Edge, Captain William

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Baldwin, Rt Hon. Stanley

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Elliott, Lt. Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Jones, J. T. Carmarthen, Lianelly)

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Kidd, James

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    King. Captain Henry Douglas

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Forrest, Walter

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Blair, Reginald

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lorden, John William

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Gardiner, James

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Grant, James A.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Briggs, Harold

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Greer, Harry

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Moles, Thomas

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Campion. Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hall, Captain Douglas Bernard

    Morelng, Captain Algernon H.

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Wlthngton)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwlch)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Casey, T. W.

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.O'by)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Blrm., Aston)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm.,W).

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Chamberlain, N. (Blrm., Ladywood)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

    Churchman. Sir Arthur

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Clough, Robert

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Parker, James

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Pearce, Sir William

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Perring, William George

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)

    Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emll W.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Howard, Major S. G

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Waddington, R.

    Purchase. H. G.

    Simm, M. T.

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Stanton, Charles B.

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Reid, D. D.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Remer, J. R.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Stewart, Gershom

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Strettord)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Wise, Frederick

    Rodger, A. K.

    Sugden, W. H.

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Taylor, J.

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Younger, Sir George

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Seager, Sir William

    Turton, E. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Seddon, J. A.

    Vickers, Douglas

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Belt, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch. Charles H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bramsdon. Sir Thomas

    Irving, Dan

    Spencer, George A.

    Briant, Frank

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cairns, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Myers, Thomas

    Wignall, James

    Entwistle. Major C. F.

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Finney, Samuel

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Wintringham, T.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Redmond, Captain William Archer

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Robertson, John

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Mr. MacVeagh and Lieut.-Com-

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    mander Kenworthy.

    Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
    The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 242.

    Division No. 385.]

    AYES.

    [9.55 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Spencer, George A.

    Briant, Frank

    Irving, Dan

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Bromfield, William

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cairns, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Myers, Thomas

    Wignall, James

    Devlin, Joseph

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Entwistle. Major C. F.

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Finney, Samuel

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wintringham, T.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Redmond, Captain William Archer

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Robertson, John

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rose. Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Mr. MacVeagh and Lieut.-Com-

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Sexton, James

    mander Kenworthy.

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Blades. Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Blair, Reginald

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Bigland, Alfred

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Briggs, Harold

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Parker, James

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Pearce, Sir William

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Perring, William George

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withlngton)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Randles, Sir John S

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Clough, Robert

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Reid, D. D.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Remer, J. R.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Jesson, C.

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Kidd, James

    Seager, Sir William

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Seddon, J. A.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Simm, M. T.

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Edge, Captain William

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Stewart, Gershom

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sugden, W. H.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)

    Taylor, J.

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Forrest. Walter

    Lynn, R. J.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Turton E. R.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Vickers, Douglas

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Waddington, R.

    Gardiner. James

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mitchell. William Lane

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Moles, Thomas

    Whitla, Sir William

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Grant, James A.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wise, Frederick

    Greer, Harry

    Morrison, Hugh

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Gregory, Holman

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Worslold, Dr. T. Cato

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Younger, Sir George

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

    Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: When the Debate was interrupted, I was suggesting that it-would be an advantage to us in coming to a decision on this subject if we made up our minds whether or not we would support it on the ground of national safety, which has been advocated, or on economic grounds, which have also been advocated. I pointed out that the Bill

  2045
  does not provide for the national safety, which we shall all support, that it means the perpetuation of bureaucracy and interference by the Government in trade and that it challenges those of us who still hold Free Trade principles in the sense that it commits this Government to the policy that all industries which are fortunate enough to secure themselves under the classification of key industries are to receive protection. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"] The hon. Member is near mc and I am suffering from a cold. I can only assume that I am in close sympathy with his remarks and he is in sympathy with mine, and I will do my best to see that none of them are lost upon him. This is a most extraordinary Bill. The oldest and most experienced Member of the House has never heard a Minister of the Crown recommend a Bill to this House for the reason the President of the Board of Trade used this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government are committed because of a prospectus which was issued, and on the good faith of that prospectus many people subscribed, and now it devolves upon the House to carry out the promise contained in that prospectus. I would call his attention to the third paragraph of the prospectus. It is a very unusual thing for the House of Commons to be asked to pass a piece of new legislation relating to the Government control and care of an industry which never has been contemplated to be under the care and control of the Government on the grounds of a prospectus. That is without precedent in the history of the House of Commons. The prospectus says:
  "This Proclamation was issued to give effect to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in the House of Commons on the 15th May, 1918, namely—"
  and then there are two dots, and beginning with a capital "i" in the word "In,"
  "In order to safeguard this particular industry against the efforts which the great German dye-making firms are certain to make after the War to destroy all we have accomplished through the War and to make this industry again subservient to Germany,"
  Then there are some more stars—
  "the importation of all foreign dyestuffs shall be controlled by a system of licences for a period of not less than 10 years after the War."
  Will the House believe that the President of the Board of Trade, if one refers
  2046
  to the OFFICIAL REPORT, sever said anything of the sort. This Government has given a pledge. The Government now asks the House to redeem a pledge, stated in the prospectus, which the President on behalf of the Government never gave. Here is the statement:

  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.

    FURTHER STATE ASSISTANCE.
    "Those who have a knowledge of this industry realise the enormous amount of research work associated with the manufacture itself. There is a further proposal, and that is that, in order"
    This is the sentence in the prospectus:
    "to safeguard this particular industry against the efforts which the great German dye-making firms are certain to make after the War to destroy all we have accomplished, etc."—[OFFICTAT, REPORT, 15th May, 1918, col. 408; Vol. 106.]
    If the Government is going to redeem the promise made by the President of the Board of Trade, which each successive Government naturally would wish to do, there is no need for the Government to stretch the argument to the point of saying that because something was put into this prospectus which I say should not have been put in, and which without desiring to make too severe a statement I will say may have misled many people, there is no need for the Government to ask the House now to pass this Bill on the ground that this prospectus contained this particular statement.
    Sir R. HORNE: Surely the hon. Member is not reading the President of the Board of Trade's speech fairly. It is perfectly plain if you read the context. When he says there is a further proposal, he means a further proposal which the Government has adopted. If you read the speech you will see. If you look at the question and answer with regard to the Licensing Committee, it is perfectly well understood that it is a definite undertaking which has been given.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I am sorry I cannot accept that, because, as a matter of fact, the Government in this Bill is not proposing to carry out the definite contract which is made here. Mr. Runciman asked:
    "Can my right hon. Friend say at this stage what will be the licencing authority and if consumers of dyestuffs will be represented on that authority?"
    He then goes on to give the terms as to the nature of the Committee.
    Sir R. HORNE: That is a concession to the consumers. I cannot think the hon. Member is complaining of that.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I am not. What I am saying is that this House is being put in the curious position of being asked to pass a piece of legislation on the ground of a prospectus, which I say is a most extraordinary suggestion to make to this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is a very extraordinary thing for this Government to be subscribing capital to commercial undertakings at all. It is exactly and absolutely contrary to the industrial history of this country, and if this sort of thing continues, of Governments giving their benediction and blessing to special industries, allowing themselves to be moved by forces of which we do not know, so that they not merely subscribe part of the capital, but by so doing enable special industries to obtain capital from the community, and then this House is asked to pass legislation because the Government is committed to an investment, where is the independence of this House, and where is the independence of British manufacturers? This is an entire departure. This was only done because there was a war. Anything is conceivable in war, and most things may be justified in war; but the manufacturing and commercial community look back to the days when Government Departments did not interfere with them in the management and conduct of their businesses, and they look forward to those days coming again. But when will they come again? There is the President of the Board of Trade with apparently a permanent mandate by reason of his office to use powers which have never been vested in any President of the Board of Trade, which the industrial community have never been asked to assent to, and never would, and to interfere in almost every business in this country. Why should the great manufacturers of Lancashire and Yorkshire, with an export business of nearly £350,000,000, have to go near the Board of Trade to ask how they can trade and where and from whom they shall buy? They are quite big enough and strong enough and able enough to do without all this question of licences. We hoped that after the War there would be an end of licences, but instead of that there is going to be an everlasting increase in the number of industries with which the
    2048
    President of the Board of Trade is going to interfere.
    There is only one advantage that I can see in this Bill. Dyes are going to be classed as a key industry, and I am very glad indeed that we know one industry at least that can be called a key industry. There is a list waiting, or in course of preparation, and I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade how he is going to make up that list. Has he some fundamental principle by which dyes came through all right, and by which he will test every other industry? Think of all the anxious manufacturers who do not know whether they are going to be luck5' enough to get on this list. Dyes have always been our favourite; dyes have come home first past the post in these "Key Industry Stakes"; where are the rest coming from? What are they? How are they going to be determined? What are manufacturers to do who want to know whether they can or cannot get on to the list? Shall they raffle for it? Shall they toss for it? Or is there any sound principle on which the President of the Board of Trade and the Government has a right to interfere in all the industrial and manufacturing businesses of this country, and, if so, what is that principle? You have manufacturers all over the country casting jealous eyes upon those who had enough influence to attract the Government to the dye industry—to attract them to the extent of putting up capital, and of putting their ægis over a trade prospectus. Are there not plenty of manufacturers to-day who, groaning under Excess Profits Duty and various other difficulties, want to know whether the same kindly spirit will ooze out from the Board of Trade as has oozed towards the dye industry? If those other people are to be left out, why? If they are to be included in order to save them, why this delay? It is two years since the President of the Board of Trade of that day was to Bring in a comprehensive Bill dealing with dyes and key industries, and the Bill has not been introduced. All sorts of manufacturers have been misled. There are a lot of people in this country who think that England has been permanently subverted from free trade, and has become a protectionist country, and that it is going to continue a pro

    2049
    tectionist policy. I venture to say that that is a very anticipatory idea. It is not true that England is prepared to abandon free trade, and a lot of manufacturers have been misled because, if this sort of thing is going to be done in the case of various special and carefully-selected industries, vast fortunes will be made by the lucky manufacturers who get themselves on this remarkable list, written we know not how or by whom, or upon what principle. There is not a Member of this House, if this sort of thing goes on, who will not realise the truth of the words of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, that, if the President of the Board of Trade is to be the arbiter of Government advantage as between one trade and another, you will make more money in ten minutes in the Lobby of the House of Commons than you would in a lifetime in industry. I ask, where or when is it going to stop? Glass is a key industry, as we have been told.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And toys.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Yes, toys, and artificial flowers. As the right hon. Gentleman would say when he is talking about national safety, no self-respecting British matron would care to have a bunch of foreign artificial flowers nodding its rebuke from the top of her head. What is the principle upon which this is founded? Does glass include infants' feeding-bottles, on the ground that there is medical testimony that, if the rising generation cannot have them, they might refuse to rise? I could suggest a series of industries which would have a very great claim upon the sentiment and tender heart of the President of the Board of Trade. I want the House, however, to come back to the determination of the question of principle. Where is the national safety provided in this Bill, so that this country will not be caught napping again, as we are told, when the next great war comes? We have just got through one war, a pretty considerable war. Some exuberant, excited leader thought to cheer us in the moments of darkness by saying to us, "Stick to it. See it through. This is a war to end war." Now our preparations are being made for the next war. We are not going to be caught napping in the next war. The next war will be a
    2050
    war to secure the fruits of the war to end war, and it will be succeeded by a war to determine the terms upon which the war to secure the fruits of the war to end war are to be finally disposed of. This is the house that Jack built. This is the way we are going on. So long as the Government pursues the policy that you must live in dread of war, until you base your foreign policy upon a proper calculation of the elimination of old enemies, a fair and liberal calculation of possible enemies and the balancing of your forces according to your foreign policy, then you need Protection and you live in constant fear of war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] There are hon. Members who think that the battle for Protection is won, and they call "Divide." They will divide this country one day and find that the majority is against them.
    I move about a great deal among manufacturers, and I know that manufacturers are sick of Government interference in any form whatever. I could go through Lancashire and Yorkshire, and in every town I could find an overwhelming predominance of public opinion against this Bill. I have some sympathy for the disappointment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell). He is a stout, solid, full-blooded, reliable January to December protectionist. He never changes, he never falters. To him a key industry is any industry that needs protecting. What is a key industry? Would the President of the Board of Trade mind telling us in his reply the principle upon which he relied which enabled him to determine the dye industry as a key industry, in order that we may have a little illumination as to what other industries may hope to be sufficiently fortunate to be included? [An HON. MEMBER: "Saving a man's life in battle!"] I am very much obliged for that intervention. There is not a single Member of this House who will not support the Government if the Government will say, "We propose to erect and maintain factories at the direct cost of the Exchequer, and to see to it that in case of possible war we shall not be caught napping, and that we shall have every possible munition of war." Every hon. Member will agree to that; but this Bill goes much further than that. The House heard the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham, who really

    2051
    represents the majority in this House on this question. He wants every industry protected, and he says: "How long, Mr. President, how long?" The President says: "I will see you in the early part of next year." Then the hon. Member says: "We have been waiting two years." The President replies: "I will see you next year." "Will you promise me that you will meet me next year," asks the hon. Member? "I promise you I will meet you next year," comes the reply. The hon. Member for Chippenham heard so much that he is not here now, he has gone home.
    Sir R. HORNE: Perhaps he was afraid of your speech.
    Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: This Government will call down upon itself the organised opposition and wrath which growing irritation will provide, as the President of the Board of Trade interferes more and more with the normal flow of commerce between country and country. We had hoped that these war measures would have disappeared, that all these licences, all these necessary permits, would have been unnecessary two years after the War. Surely, it is not to be contended, and certainly it is not to be admitted by those of us who are able to give general support to the Government, that because we wish to support proper provision for national safety, we are to sell the free trade pass and agree to this country becoming a full protectionist country. With our present industrial difficulties, if this country does not revert to free trade and if our industries are not allowed to produce as they were before the War on a free trade basis, we shall have brought on ourselves a final calamity which will prevent the industrial community in this country from recovering itself. We are groaning sufficiently under taxation without groaning under the additional unendurable pain of Government interference in private enterprise. Though the President of the Board of Trade is so optimistic that he thought this Bill should go through without opposition, I hope that there will be a Division and that in the Division there will be expressed a sentiment which, if it does not represent the majority here, represents, I can say of my own knowledge, the opinion among commercial and industrial men in this
    2052
    country, that this Bill and all such Government interference ought to be prohibited, so that England may be once more free to trade with all the world, as it has been doing all these years when it made the wealth by which alone it was able to sustain the great burden of the War.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: A great many people seem to have forgotten that there has been a great war and others have refused to learn the lessons which the great War has taught us. I am not going to answer the speech of the hon. Member because he has not dealt with the question before the House. He has simply indulged in a panegyric of Free Trade. I speak as a business man who has nothing to do with Free Trade or Tariff Reform, and as a dye-user who has been engaged in merchanting and using dyes for manufacture for the last 27 years, so that it is not likely that I am going to recommend a Bill which will ruin me or the industry in which I am engaged. If you go back to the year 1914 you will remember that if it had not been for the British Alizerine Company and the Swiss dyes every printing works and every dye works in this country would have been shut up in six months. I can remember during these days merchants and business men coming to me and saying, "This thing shall never occur again. Once this War is over we will see that we will produce our own dyes and never again have to go to a possible belligerent country to purchase our dyes." The Calico Printers' Association has been mentioned. I am a member of the Federation of Calico Printers, of which the Calico Planters' Association is also a member. They have only one vote, in the same way that every other printer has a vote. Last week we had a meeting in Manchester to consider this question, and a resolution was proposed that this Bill should be supported. That resolution was carried by 14 votes to 7. The Calico Printers' Association dissented, and told us that they would fight us over this question; but it is interesting to see what action the Calico Printers' Association took up in 1918.
    In 1918 the Federation of Calico Printers sent a deputation to see the late President of the Board of Trade, Sir Albert Stanley, with regard to the future of the dye industry in this country. One of the delegates was the then chairman of the Calico Printers' Association, Sir

    2053
    Lennox Lee. Sir Albert Stanley suggested that there were three possibilities with regard to starting the dye industry in this country—subsidy, tariff, licensing and prohibition. The deputation agreed unanimously that licensing and prohibition must come into existence in this country for ten years after the termination of the War. That memorandum, I expect the President of the Board of Trade has in his office now. The Calico Printers' Association signed that memorandum. What do they say now? They say, "We signed it under pressure." I asked under what pressure, and they could not tell me. I asked whether there was any member who protested against their signing. Not even a letter of protest was sent. Yet, now, the Calico Printers' Association turn round and say they are against this Bill. They do say they are in favour of subsidy, but this country would not stand the subsidising of industry. There is only one way out, and that is licensing and prohibition. A great deal has been said about possible injury to the great textile trade of Lancashire. I should be the last to advocate any policy which had such an effect. Do hon. Members realise what amount of colour is put on the cloth and what percentage of the cost it amounts to? It amounts to between three and five per cent, of the total cost of the finished product. The percentage therefore is practically infinitesimal Before the War we quibbled and argued over ½d or Id. per lb. for dye-stuffs, but we could easily have paid Is. a lb. more and could thus have supported our own industry.
    I want to reply to the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton). He told us some interesting stories about the merchants, and on that point I am bound to cross swords with him. He told us that the merchant abroad would send the design to this country and say that he wanted a sprig in blue or red or yellow. It is the calico printer who produces the design. We buy our designs from Paris or have our own designers in our offices. We submit those designs to the merchant and the merchant sends them abroad for his customer, and the customer either approves or disapproves. If the customer suggests an alteration there would simply be a tracing on the design suggesting the alteration. As to the colour, the customer might want black for red, yellow for pink, or pink for green, but all these colours
    2054
    are standard colours and every calico printer keeps them in stock with a supply for six months ahead. The hon. Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes) referred to British Dyes and told the House that they could manufacture 70 to 80 per cent, of the colours that we need in this country. Let me tell him that British Dyes were a rotten concern at the start and are a rotten concern to-day and cannot manufacture 15 per cent, of the colours we need, and I do not know where he is getting his information.
    Major BARNES: I referred to British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: That is British Dyes, for short. The place is only fit to scrap and put on the mudheap. Then what did Levinstein's do before the War? Before the War their £10 shares were standing at a shilling. They paid no cumulative interest for eleven years, and in 1918 and 1919 those shilling shares were £180.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I know what that cheer means. It means that because Levinstein's have been allowed to profiteer disgustingly in the past that might occur in the future. But the dye user is afforded protection by this Bill. What is that protection? There are to be five dye users, three dye manufacturers, and two members appointed by the Board of Trade.
    Sir R. HORNE: Two and a Chairman.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Two, and an independent Chairman appointed by the Board of Trade. Therefore the users will always be able to prevent any profiteering. If I see Levinstein's manufacturing a direct red at 2s. per lb. and I know that that can be manufactured at Is. per lb., and that Germany can supply it at that price, then I will grant a licence to bring it in in order to get it at the proper price. There is ample protection by this Bill. The question of national production and national security has been dealt with. We all hope we may never be embroiled in a big war again, but surely we are not going to be such fools as not to be prepared if we should be. An hon. Member said that he did not see anything in this Bill with regard to the use of dye works in such a contingency, but does he not know that dye works can be used to make explosives and that during the War some firms made picric acid and other

    2055
    preparations. It is only by establishing the dye industry in this country that we can ever get national security and above all national security for the trade. Does the House not realise what is going on in America? We might get into such a position here that we might never be able to procure the dyestuffs we want. They could be kept in America, in Germany, and elsewhere, and we might never be able to get access to them at all. The only hope for the trade in the long run is that we should be able to manufacture our own dyes, and it is simply for that reason that I am speaking. I hope this House will not look at this matter from a Free Trade or a Tariff Reform point of view. It has nothing to do with that question. It is a business question for men who are engaged in the large textile industries. This scheme is approved of by the manufacturers and the users, who are the chief people concerned.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Have you ever heard of any workmen who approve of it?
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I cannot answer for any workmen, but I only know that during the War my workmen were at me continually, asking "How long will this colour last? When shall we be thrown out of work?" There was another meeting held in Manchester last week, at the Memorial Hall, at which all the dye users were represented, and they also carried this resolution, that this Bill should be proceeded with.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Did they carry it unanimously?
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I do not think so.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is it also the fact that representatives of people who used more than 60 per cent, of imported dyes before the War were against that resolution?
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: No, that is absolutely wrong. You take the Calico Printers' Association. They do not own half the machines that are in the Calico Printers' Federation. You take the varnish trade. They were represented at that meeting, and they are in favour of this measure.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: What percentage of the dyes used—[Interruption].
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I never like to speak on a question with which I am not conversant. I can only answer for the trade in which I have spent my life. Again referring to the Calico Printers' Association, I am rather inclined to think there is something more behind their opposition to this Bill than genuine opposition. The Calico Printers' Association some years ago made a declaration that they would smash every outside printer in the trade, and I am rather inclined to think that under this Bill they think the smaller printers might be placed on the same lines as their big association. I do not very often speak in this House, but I thought that as a dye user I ought to make my protest. Establishing the dye industry in this country in my opinion is vital to us, for fear that in the future America, Germany, Japan, and other countries might shut us out of the dye industry altogether, and leave us in the same position as we were in in 1914.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: There are so many points upon which objection might be raised to this Bill, that we can only take at this stage one or two of them, and perhaps the most important. I do not think any speaker so far has really brought out what is the most cogent objection to legislation of this sort. It is this—and we have already seen the danger even before this Bill was introduced. We have a combination of Government interests with private interests, and that introduces at once suspicion of the bona fides of the people who act on behalf of the Government. That suspicion is not justified in the least, but there is no question whatever that' it exists very largely in the country at present—the suspicion that special interests are favoured by Government Departments. It seems to me that at a time like this, when most violent attacks are being made upon the whole Parliamentary system of this country, it is essential that nothing whatever should be done in the way of legislation that can bring any sort of suspicion upon the Parliamentary system and upon the Government Departments. To my mind, that is by far the most important objection to this Bill, and, even if the whole of our dye industry is to be destroyed, and even if we are going to be put at a very great disadvantage in case of another European war, those disadvantages are as nothing compared with

    2057
    the wrecking of our Parliamentary system and of confidence in Government Departments. What have we seen in connection with this Bill already? We have seen a vast amount of lobbying and invitations for people to go, at the expense of those concerned in this industry, to investigate the dyes, and be entertained at their expense, and all the loathsome system which has grown up in any country where there is any protection in existence is already foreshadowed here.
    We have heard a very great deal of the necessity for bolstering-up this industry with a view to it being in a special position when war breaks out again. To my mind there is a vast amount of exaggeration being expressed here to-night on that particular point. The apparatus that is used in the manufacture of dyes is, from an engineering point of view, an extremely simple apparatus. It can be manufactured quickly, and the very roughest port of apparatus can be used in many of these operations. There is no difficulty, speaking as an engineer, in building up that apparatus and duplicating it with the very greatest rapidity in case of emergency. Again, speakers to-night have argued that the Germans, in this particular instance, have an enormous advantage over us, because of the low value of their exchange. Is there any other way of adjusting those exchange values except by allowing the Germans to export their goods? How on earth is the exchange ever to find its level if we are going to prevent the Germans from sending their supplies at a very low price indeed until the exchange has adjusted itself? I know the Government has some idea, by some ingenious Act of Parliament, of correcting the exchanges and getting over this difficulty. I do not think anyone— certainly none of the economists of whom I have inquired—could ever dream that any sort of legislation, or any sort of Government action, could get over this exchange difficulty. The only way to save our industries from the disadvantages through the low value of the exchange in Germany is to get as big imports from Germany as quickly as possible so as to adjust the exchange.
    This Bill is based on the extraordinary fallacy which goes by the name of the key industry. In this particular instance of the cotton trade we have the argument used that we must not allow this great
    2058
    industry to be dependent on foreign sources of supply for dyes. Gould any more ridiculous argument be put forward? The whole raw material of the cotton trade is imported from abroad, yet there is not the faintest suggestion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that we should start growing cotton here. [An HON. MEMBER: "You cannot!"] We could grow cotton if the War Museum were removed from the Crystal Palace and suitable hot-water pipes put in. It is proposed to create an absolutely artificial industry in this country. We know perfectly well that under modern conditions of war one of the most important things in the way of raw material is copra: it forms the bases of many industries and many absolute necessities for this country. If this policy of key industries is to be adopted we must start at once to foster copra growing in this country. It can only be produced from the coconut, and people will therefore have to start growing that here under glass. The whole key industry idea is one of the most ridiculous that the Government have ever put before us. It is in keeping with the whole legislative idea of the Government —the sort of Providence which can build new houses, create new industries, and do any mortal thing, and particularly those things which ordinary commercial people in this country cannot do for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that these proposals have the support of 90 per cent, of the dye users of this country.
    Sir R. HORNE: I did not say that I said it had the support of an association representing 90 per cent, of the dye users.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: One should remember a distinction which has not so far been drawn in this Debate. There is a very large class of dyes, the majority in point of quantity, which have been procured in this country and can still be; there is also a smaller class, a more important dye, the finer shades and new inventions, which cannot be procured in this country. Of dye users there are two classes. The first, the larger class, consumes large quantities of pure colour dyes; the second, the smaller class, consumes small quantities of the high value finer dyes. The only hope for this country and for our industries is to take the cream of each industry and live on it. As times goes on in every industry

    2059
    —we have seen it in the cotton industry and we are seeing it in the steel and iron trades—the poor quality of stuff will inevitably go to our competitors, because we have no natural resources, and the only hope for this country—with its gigantic population on a small island—is by getting the cream of every industry and using in its development our skill and brains in order to secure an industrial future. There is another point which has not been brought out. Why have the Government brought this Bill in and thrust it forward with every sign of hurry at this particular moment? This is a case where the Government have joined with private interests and put public money in a private concern. It is not the only case. To my mind the reason why we are having this Bill thrust upon us at the present time is not unconnected with the fact that the Government has gone through this process in two other cases, and in both the taxpayers' money has been received and probably lost. In the one case, though a commercial concern, it is lost already, and in the second it is extremely probable that it will be lost very soon. Therefore, the Government comes to us to bolster up this particular industry by means of what is practically prohibition in order that they may go to the taxpayer and say: "Your money has been invested properly and is giving you a good return," whereas if we do not give them this Bill this House and the country at large will know exactly what the Government has done and is doing by putting money into rotten concerns which certainly would never be in the market without prohibition and without licences. They do this instead of cutting down the capital by about 75 per cent., for it does not represent any assets whatever.
    Therefore I hope the House before swallowing this Bill presented by the Government with a pistol at their head,
    with the Government Whips on, and all sorts of persuasion and force—[An HON. MEMBER: "It will be carried by a large majority"]—for one must remember that during the course of these Debates the average attendance here has been ex tremely small—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no; not to-day!"]—well, I hope the House will not allow itself to be persuaded to bolster up another failure—the third!—of this Government in entering into negotiations with commercial interests and put ting the taxpayers' money into concerns they have not properly investigated be forehand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] There is no need for me to remind the House of the examples to which I refer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] We have had in the public Press during the last week sufficient warning to warn off any one except the present Government against the danger of pitting their brains—which are not very good —in commercial matters against the cleverest commercial brains of this country. We saw a few months ago that we were asked to convert in the case of one company a first charge on the whole assets of the business into preference shares. We have now the first report of that concern, which shows a loss of a quarter of a million on the transaction. Where is our money? Where have our securities gone? The shares are practically unsaleable. There is no preference dividend and precious little prospect of any recovery in the future. The second case is that where we were asked to enter into a contract for the sale of the island in the Pacific—a phosphate island—
    Sir R. HORNErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 74.

    Division No. 386.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. 1

    Barnett, Major Ft. W.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Briggs, Harold

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Atkey, A. R.

    Blair, Reginald

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Burn, Col. C R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withlngton)

    Casey, T. W.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).

    Hinds, John

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Chllcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Hood, Joseph

    Purchase, H. G.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, w.)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Clough, Robert

    Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Reid, D. D.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Remer, J. R.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Dalzlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Kidd, James

    Seager, Sir William

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Seddon, J. A.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Simm, M. T.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Stanier, Captain Sir Seville

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Elveden, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lorden, John William

    Stevens, Marshall

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Sugden, W. H.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lynn, R. J.

    Taylor, J.

    Foreman, Henry

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Forrest, Walter

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Turton, E. R.

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Vickers, Douglas

    Gardiner, James

    Manville, Edward

    Waddington, R.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Matthews, David

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Moles, Thomas

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Warren, Lieut.-Col, Sir Alfred H.

    Grant, James A.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Greer, Harry

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Whitla, Sir William

    Gregory, Holman

    Morrison, Hugh

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

    Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Hall, Captain Douglas Bernard

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l. W. D'by)

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H

    Wise, Frederick

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Parker, James

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Rlpon)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Younger, Sir George

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Perring, William George

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Philippe, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Barton, sir William (Oldham)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    2062

    2063

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Briant, Frank

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) j

    Sexton, James

    Bromfield, William

    Irving, Dan

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Cairns, John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Spencer, George A.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Entwistlc, Major C. F.

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Finney, Samuel

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Wignall. James

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Myers, Thomas

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wintringham, T.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Robertson, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Shaw.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes,277; Noes,72.

    Division No. 387.]

    AYES.

    [11.11 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Clough, Robert

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hall, Captain Douglas Bernard

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)

    Archer-Slice, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Harris, Sir Henry Percy

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Davidson, J. C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Dean, Lleut.-Commander P. T.

    Hood, Joseph

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & CI'ckm'nn,W.)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Blair, Reginald

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Elliott, Lt.-Coi. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Elveden, Viscount

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Bridgeman, William Clrve

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Foreman, Henry

    J Jephcott, A. R.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Forrest, Walter

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Gardiner, James

    Kidd, James

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham

    Kino. Captain Henry Douglas

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Casey, T. W.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

    Grant, James A.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm.,W).

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Chamberlain, N. (Blrm., Ladywood)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Greer, Harry

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Gregory, Holman

    Lloyd. George Butler

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Lorden, John William

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Sugden, W. H.

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Taylor, J.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Turton, E. R.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Vickers, Douglas

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Waddington, R.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Reid, D. D.

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Manville, Edward

    Remer, J. R.

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Remnant, Sir James

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Matthews, David

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Warren, Lieut.-Col, Sir Alfred H.

    Moles, Thomas

    Rodger, A. K.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Whitla, Sir William

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Scott. Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Seager, Sir William

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Wise, Frederick

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Simm, M. T.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Parker, James

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Pearce, Sir William

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Younger, Sir George

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Stevens, Marshall

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Perring, William George

    Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Robertson, John

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hinds, John

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Briant, Frank

    Irving, Dan

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bromfield, William

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Spencer, George A.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Cairns, John

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, I nee)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Finney, Samuel

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Wignall, James

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Myers, Thomas

    Wintringham, T.

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wood, Major M. M (Aberdeen, C.)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Hall. F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Shaw.

    Bill read a Second time.

    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Major Barnes.]
    The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 272.

    Division No. 388.]

    AYES.

    [11.21 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Briant, Frank

    Entwistie, Major C. F.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Bromfield, William

    Finney, Samuel

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Cairns, John

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Spencer, George A.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Myers, Thomas

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wignall, James

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Irving, Dan

    Robertson, John

    Wintringham, Thomas

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Rose, Frank H.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Sexton, James

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Sitch, Charles H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Shaw.

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

    Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Davidson, J.C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Atkey, A. R.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Derltend)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Kidd, James

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Foreman, Henry

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Blair, Reginald

    Forrest, Walter

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lorden, John William

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Gardiner, James

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Lynn, R. J.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie

    Briggs, Harold

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Grant, James A.

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Greer, Harry

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Gregory, Holman

    Manville, Edward

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Matthews, David

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Guest, Major O. (Lelc, Loughboro')

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Moles. Thomas

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Casey, T. W.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

    Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Chllcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Clough, Robert

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hinds, John

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. i

    Parker, James

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hood, Joseph

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Courthope, Major George L.

    Hope Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    2068

    2069

    Perring, William George

    Seddon, J. A.

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Warren, Lieut.-Col, Sir Alfred H.

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Pinkham. Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Simm, M T.

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Whitla, Sir William

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Reid, D. D.

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Remer, J. R.

    Sugden, W. H.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, J.

    Wise, Frederick

    Rodger, A. K.

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Turton, E. R.

    Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Vickers, Douglas

    Younger, Sir George

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Waddington, R.

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Seager, Sir William

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND). [GRANTS.]
  Committee to consider the authorising of the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of grants payable under any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to housing in Scotland, and for purposes in connection therewith— (King's Recommendation signified)— To-morrow.—[Mr. Munro.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) [COMPENSATION].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of any compensation pay
  2070
  able under any Act of the present Session to amend the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, and to continue certain bye-laws in respect of the disposal of land freed from restrictive covenants—(King's Recommendation signified) — To-morrow.— [Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-seven minutes before Twelve o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  WAR OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE (DELAY).
  WAR OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE (DELAY).
  WAR MEDALS.
  WAR MEDALS.
  DEPRECIATED HAY, BYTHAN FARM, MARLBOROUGH (ARBITRATION).
  DEPRECIATED HAY, BYTHAN FARM, MARLBOROUGH (ARBITRATION).
  CHILWELL DEPOT.
  CHILWELL DEPOT.
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (LIEUTENANT GLENDINING).
  ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (LIEUTENANT GLENDINING).
  STOPPAGES FROM PAY (DESERTED WIVES).
  STOPPAGES FROM PAY (DESERTED WIVES).
  WESTBERE CAMP.
  WESTBERE CAMP.
  COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES IN WAR (MR. W. M. PLATT).
  COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES IN WAR (MR. W. M. PLATT).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  PERSIA.
  PERSIA.
ROYAL NAVY.
  REVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA.
  REVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA.
  ADMIRALTY OUTPORT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  ADMIRALTY OUTPORT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  ROYAL HOSPITAL SCHOOL, GREENWICH.
  ROYAL HOSPITAL SCHOOL, GREENWICH.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  MENTAL CASES.
  MENTAL CASES.
  WAR OFFICE SUBSTITUTION COMMITTEES.
  WAR OFFICE SUBSTITUTION COMMITTEES.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARREARS (PAYMENT).
  ARREARS (PAYMENT).
  DISABILITY AND DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY AND DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  FLOATING DEBT.
  FLOATING DEBT.
  INCOME TAX (WIDOWERS).
  INCOME TAX (WIDOWERS).
  GOVERNMENT LOANS (INVESTORS' LOSSES).
  GOVERNMENT LOANS (INVESTORS' LOSSES).
  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
  DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) BILL.
  PALESTINE (KEREN HAYESOD).
  PALESTINE (KEREN HAYESOD).
  GREECE.
  GREECE.
  CUXHAVEN (BRITISH AND FRENCH OFFICERS).
  CUXHAVEN (BRITISH AND FRENCH OFFICERS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  GOVERNMENT STORES.
  GOVERNMENT STORES.
  AUSTRALIAN WHEAT.
  AUSTRALIAN WHEAT.
HOUSING.
  STONE QUARRIES, SCOTLAND.
  STONE QUARRIES, SCOTLAND.
  HUTS, HAZELEY DOWN, TWYFORD.
  HUTS, HAZELEY DOWN, TWYFORD.
SCOTLAND.
  LOCAL VETO POLLS (COST).
  LOCAL VETO POLLS (COST).
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY FARES, LONDON.
  RAILWAY FARES, LONDON.
  KEIGHLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL (FIRE ESCAPES).
  KEIGHLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL (FIRE ESCAPES).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (STORAGE).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (STORAGE).
  JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  QUAERYMEN'S DISPUTE, ANGLESEY.
  QUAERYMEN'S DISPUTE, ANGLESEY.
  OFFICIAL REPORTERS' TYPISTS.
  OFFICIAL REPORTERS' TYPISTS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read lª, and to be printed.
HULME TRUST ESTATES (NON-EDUCATIONAL) CHARITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read lª, and to be printed.
BAPTIST CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read lª, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to give notice that
at the rising of the House to-night I shall move that your Lordships do adjourn until three
o'clock to-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARRBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE had given notice, on the Motion for the Second
Reading, to move "That the Bill be read 2ª this day six months." The noble Marquess said:
My Lords, I have been asked by one or two of my noble friends whose opinions I most highly value,
"What is your object in moving the rejection of the Agriculture Bill?" I do so for the simple
reason that in my opinion—
1144
and not only in my opinion, but in that of many who are more qualified to speak than I
am—the Bill is bad for agriculture; it is dangerous to the public, inasmuch as if it is to
be used at all and to come into operation it must lay fresh millions of taxation on an already
exhausted nation; and I may add that the Bill is repugnant to Liberal and Free Trade principles.
These are my objections for what they are worth, but I have received an amount of powder and shot
from an unexpected quarter.
Your Lordships listened with interest to the speech of my noble friend the Minister of
Agriculture a week ago, when we heard from him the admissions that this is an unpopular Bill;
that there is no enthusiasm for it amongst any section of the industry; that it is not primarily
designed as a measure of agricultural reform, for it contains proposals which admittedly
interfere with the laws of supply and demand, and that it is not in any way the product of the
unaided genius of the Government—I am perfectly ignorant of the person to whom reference
is made—but that it is a reasonable compromise negotiated (and I ask your Lordships'
attention to the word "negotiated") between the authorised representatives of the Farmers' Union
and a group of very distinguished landlords in the House of Commons.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM): I am
sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I was speaking only of one part of one clause in that
connection. It is not fair to apply the observation to the whole Bill. I was referring to a
subsection of Clause 8 only.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: I fully accept that
explanation. I will only remark, as regards that clause, that we should like to know of whom this
group of very distinguished landlords in another House is composed. I do not know what your
Lordships may think of these negotiations, but I hardly imagine that they can be acceptable to
our House as a whole. My noble friend then made a statement which I think (and I have no doubt
the whole House will think) is hardly fair to himself. He stated that he laid no claim to any
special expert knowledge of agriculture, nor had he any pretensions to speak as an agricultural
authority. I take the earliest opportunity to assure my noble friend that that is not the case so
far as

1145
we are concerned, and I express to him the gratitude we all feel for the splendid work he did
during the critical times of the war.
Then my noble friend promised to consider what he was good enough to call "reasonable
Amendments." I should like to ask one simple question. What earthly chance has any reasonable,
concentrated Amendment of passing through your Lordships' House? The three classes affected are
landlords, farmers, and labourers. I ask, Is there any earthly chance of an Amendment proposed to
your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Kimberley, who is the accredited representative of Labour
in your Lordships' House, passing this House? Is there any chance of any Amendment in the
farmers' interest, proposed perhaps by my noble friend Lord Chaplin, who for so many years has
taken a sort of avuncular interest in the tenant farmers? Is there any chance of an Amendment to
get rid of control being accepted by my noble friend opposite? If that is so, what remains?
The only Amendments which can have any chance of passing this House are in the interests of the
landlords—that is, in the interests of the landlords in this House; and how can we
landlords possibly expect the Minister of Agriculture to agree to any Amendments openly framed
and submitted for our own special personal profit or advantage? What would be said of the House
if such a thing were done? I know it has been whispered that pourparlers, agreements, and
concessions have been made during the past week, and that therefore the opposition to the Bill is
weakened; but what could be said of us if we gave a Second Reading to a Bill simply and solely
because concessions had been given by the Government in our own interest? I do not believe one
single word of these whisperings or these reports that any such negotiations have taken
place.
Now as regards these promises. I think most of us are sick to death of promises. We have had
nothing but promises—promises about peace and about retrenchment, and now we have these
promises about Amendments, but I do not suppose there was any promise that ever went so near to
the heart of the British public as the simple announcement by the Prime Minister some years ago
that he meant to make this country "land fit for heroes to live in"—a land "which heroes
would fashion and share,"
1146
if I might quote the splendid sentence which Lord Northcliffe put in one of his books. Certainly
no Prime Minister has ever had a greater chance of carrying out so noble a resolve. Just think
for one moment. There was the Prime Minister himself, the most fearless and outspoken advocate of
agricultural reform that it is possible to conceive. And I may say in the strictest
confidence—I should not like it put about—that I have heard noble Lords, members of
this House, say that in some of his past speeches he may have gone a "wee bit too far." Still, he
has the steadying influence of Lord Selborne, a past President of the Board of Agriculture, on
whose Report we are told this Bill rests. I have not time to go into that, but I have my doubts
about it. At all events he had to help him the steadying influence of Lord Selborne, a man who in
the worst times of the war did us great personal service by keeping the men on the land—a
service which I do not think has yet been sufficiently recognised or appreciated.
Then he had Lord Ernle, another ex-President of the Board of Agriculture and a man with a
European reputation as an agricultural authority, who has the advantage of being controller and
commander-in-chief of one of the best and most expensively managed estates in the United Kingdom.
Beside these, there is my noble friend opposite who is at the head of the Ministry of
Agriculture, and to help him he has Mr. Flood, the Permanent. Secretary, and all his companions,
who deservedly rank among the best of the Civil Servants of the Crown. I cannot pay then, a
higher compliment. In addition to that he had thousands and thousands of acres of the best land
in England in the market. And, best of all, the Khaki Victory lightning election, sprung upon us
a very few hours after the Armistice had been declared, fulfilled its open object by giving the
Prime Minister the largest mechanical majority that probably this country has ever seen. Yet with
all that in hand, what do they produce? Nothing but this miserable Bill, which according to the
words of the author is unpopular—that is, distrusted and disliked by the people at large.
What does the Bill do? All it does is to interfere with, to disturb, to harass and alarm the
whole of the agricultural industry. It must increase the price of food if it is going to do any
good at all, and we have it on the best authority that it will not bring one single fresh acre
under wheat cultivation,

1147
nor, in consequence, put a single additional agricultural labourer on the land. All it does is to
show once more, so far as Coalition legislation is concerned, how deep is the gulf between
promise and performance and how wide is the gap between aspiration and achievement.
I am afraid we cannot say much for the Bill itself, but I am bound to say that we ought to have
nothing but praise for the way in which my noble friend introduced the Bill. He came to the point
at once. He made a Second Reading speech, and he mercifully left out that inevitable preamble
which we all of us use as to why it was, and when it was, and where it was, and wherever it was,
and all the ten thousand pities it was, that the farmers in England in days past had to give up
their farms and over a million labourers in consequence were forced into the towns. He mercifully
left that out, because it would have lasted five and twenty minutes. He came at once to the gist
of the Bill, and he told us that the Bill was divided into two parts, and that each part had its
own distinct and definite object. He put the whole case in a nutshell, and if the House will
allow me to save time I should like to put security first.
I think it is generally admitted that increased production depends very much upon security of
tenure. Security of tenure is evidently a leading factor in the minds of His. Majesty's
Government. The Prime Minister, in a speech that he made at Caxton Hall on October 31, 1919, laid
great stress on it. He said, "The first condition is security of the cultivator." Then Sir Arthur
Boscawen, who so ably piloted the Bill through the House of Commons, was good enough to say that
"security is the keynote of the Bill." We also heard last week what the opinions are of the noble
Lord the Minister of Agriculture on the subject. Security is in Clause 8, Part II, page 12 of the
Bill. If your Lordships will turn to that security clause you will see that the word "security"
is not even mentioned in it. In little italics on the side of the Bill you will find instead the
word "compensation." Compensation, of course, for the landlord for his goodness in keeping his
tenants on the land? Not a bit of it. It is compensation for disturbance, compensation for
kicking the man out of his holding, compensation for doing the very thing that this Bill is sup-
1148
posed to get rid of and to destroy. Let me read the words in the Bill—
"If a tenant is required to quit without any fault on his part, the compensation is to be
one year's rent plus the loss or expense of removal."
But he had that before. That was in the Bill in what Messrs. Gilbey would call '06. It was in
1906 that that privilege was given to him under the Liberal Government when Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman was Prime Minister. Therefore you cannot claim to give him any boon, because
he had it before.
But you say, "Oh, wait a minute, he gets one year's rent." That is one year's gross rent, which
would probably be on different estates two, three, or four years' net rent. I do not say whether
that is right or wrong, but I say call it by the proper name. Call it "compensation" if you like,
call it confiscation, call it the proper thing to do to a tenant, call it highway robbery, call
it anything you like—I give no opinion on the subject—but for the Lord's sake do
not call it security of tenure when the tenant receives notice to quit for what is now called the
caprice of the landlord and which was not very many years ago considered a very serious offence,
the sort of offence that necessitated immediate removal. Supposing that the tenant has been given
notice to quit for killing the ground game, or for perpetually putting his great feet into
partridges' nests, or keeping a dog, or going to chapel instead of to church, or (worst of all)
voting against his landlord. In the old days that meant immediate dismissal. Now, that is the
caprice of the landlord, and if that is done the tenant gets four years' rent, which may be ten
or twelve years net rent. I am giving no opinion as to whether that is right or wrong, but I say
for goodness sake do not call that security of tenure.
Two or three noble Lords with myself heard the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill in
another place, and when this was explained by Sir Arthur Boscawen a bewildered Radical Member who
was listening to Sir Arthur with his eyes and mouth wide open with astonishment involuntarily
exclaimed, "Yes, but where does the security come in?" Sir Arthur thought he had his chance, and
looked at him with a sort of look as much as to say "Oh, you perfect ass, the Lord has delivered
you into my hands." Sir Arthur then turned round to his supporters, and with what the French call
beau geste said,

1149
"The security is that most people will hesitate before giving notice." Where has Sir Arthur
Boscawen lived all his life? Where can be possibly have lived to make such a, statement as that? His second statement was, "The tenant will walk off with large sums of money, and he will very likely get a better farm." That is the statement made in the House of Commons by the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, and he could not make it without the consent of
his chief who, I suppose, agrees with him. My opinion is that this is the sort of security which
secures evictions, and which simplifies, justifies, and legalises notices to quit, and puts a
premium on them. Therefore I should not he hauled over the coals if I said that the Prime
Minister has recanted his old opinion to this extent, that he has been converted to this, and if
this is his conception of security of tenure then I think I may fairly apply to him the words
that Lord Macaulay, in one of his essays, applies to what he calls "scribblers" on the subject of
liberty, and say—
"Mr. Lloyd George and Lord Lee of Fareham conceive of liberty as monks conceive of love, as cockneys conceive of rural innocence and delights, and as novel-reading seamstresses conceive of Almacks and Grosvenor-square, of balls at Buckingham Palace, of seductive Marquesses, and of mustachioed and magnificent life guardsmen."
I have only one thing more to say, and I regret that it is to make a personal statement. The
noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture threw a distinct challenge across the Table to me and
said, "I hear you are going to move the rejection of the Bill. What else do you propose? What is
your policy I Are you going to have the laissez faire policy over again, or are you only
going to reject for the purpose of rejecting?" It is news to me to be asked to stand up in this
House and to lay down the law and lecture people like the Duke of Buccleuch, or the Duke of
Bedford, or Lord Ancaster, or any of your Lordships as to the way in which your properties ought
to be managed, or the way that you treat your tenants. But since he has brought this matter up I
might say very respectfully that I have my own ideas as to what security of tenure should be, and
as I always try to practise what I preach I put them into my own agreements. I think I may fairly
say that my plan of security of tenure has not been altogether a failure, because I have had my
estate of 33,000 acres for 53 years, and except in cases of death I have only had eighteen
1150
changes on the estate in the whole half-century. I apologise most humbly to the House for
presuming to bring in a personal question of any sort, description, or kind, but I was challenged
across the Table to that effect. My noble friend put on his shining armour and rattled his sabre
in my face, and I was bound to answer the challenge. That is all I have to say about security of
tenure.
To save time and not to trespass on your Lordships' House, I propose only to take the two main
points in the Bill and not to go into details. I leave all the other dangers and difficulties and
I will not say what else in the Bill to other noble Lords. I believe there are a great many who
intend to speak and whom your Lordships are very anxious to hear, so I leave all the details to
them and will only say a few words on the increase of production. Increased agricultural I
production was brought before the country in 1917 in a very startling, sudden, and disagreeable
manner. The noble Lord opposite, who used to be Civil Lord of the Admiralty, let out a very
remarkable stable secret which I should think when it was telegraphed over to Germany must have
given very great satisfaction to that dreadful person, Admiral von Tirpitz. The noble Lord told
us that there never were more than 18 submarines hovering round the coast, and yet that it took
2,500 vessels of war to try to catch these submarines and that every submarine sunk cost the
country £20,000,000 sterling. That was a most ghastly condition of things, of which,
mercifully, we were unaware at the time. Still there was a good deal of anxiety about on the
subject, and to prevent a panic—I ought not to say that because there never was panic in
this country, though my noble friend talked of panicky farmers—to prevent any alarm the
Prime Minister thought it would be wise, and no doubt it was, to make a public statement, and he
took the opportunity of making that statement at the Guildhall, where he had an invitation to go.
This is what he said. He said he was going to do something for the country, and he added—
"If our plans are carried out there will be 3,000,000 fresh acres of land under cultivation, and we can guarantee that without a ton of foodstuffs from abroad no one can starve."
That was the statement he made in the Guildhall. Of course, that reassured the

1151
public very much, and they whooped and holloaed and cheered and said there was nobody like Lloyd
George, and away they went to their different homes. The Prime Minister was shown by the City
officials into his old pre-war Limehouse Inn, and was then whirled back to Downing-street very
much pleased with his evening and the way in which he had been received.
Then a few weeks afterwards Lord Ernle—Mr. Prothero, as he was then—came to the
rescue and did a very remarkable thing. He introduced an Emergency War Corn Production Bill,
which, like an Agricultural Prince Rupert, he carried at a gallop through both Houses of
Parliament, and it was put on the Statute-book I think some time in August. Lord Ernle saved the
situation temporarily.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: There is no doubt about it,
and though some people were rather apt to what is called "crab" the Act, the public did what they
could, we were all on half rations, all our flower-gardens and our wives' flower-gardens were put
under potatoes, cabbages, and other food, and in consequence of there being more than 1,000,000
acres put under allotments and intensive cultivation we weathered the storm, thanks to Lord
Ernie. I stated in this House—I was not contradicted, so I suppose it is right—that
instead of fourteen weeks' supply of homegrown food which is our normal supply, we had at least
forty-two weeks' supply of home-grown food during 1918.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: What we did then we can do
again, and I respectfully submit that possibly Lord Ernie did a bigger thing than he has any idea
of, because supposing that the Government are going to war—goodness knows whether they are
or not, nobody knows—but supposing they want to go to war, they already have this Act
which is in existence until 1922. If they go to war all we have to do is to increase the supply
of overseas wheat so as to tide over the dangerous time up to the next harvest, and then, thanks
to Lord Ernle, do what we did before—do everything we can to make ourselves temporarily
self-supporting, and there would not be the smallest earthly reason for bringing in this, I will
not use any adjective, Bill.
1152
But this year it was thought that the Government ought to bring in some other agricultural
policy. It was very expensive, but that did not matter, and though they were advised, I am
informed—I do not know it, it is only simple gossip—by those who know to hold their
hands and to let the Act run out to the end of 1922, they said, "Oh, no; we must bring in an
agricultural policy. We must spend some more money, and we will bring in an agricultural policy
which will astonish the country." And they have done it.
The first proposal was, of course, "We must do what the Prime Minister said we would do at the
Guildhall; we will get 3,000,000 acres and put that under wheat cultivation—the thing is
settled, and there we are, no one can stop us." But then the experts said, "Good gracious!
That won't do at all, because we have it on the best authority—Sir Henry Rew, the best
authority in the world on these subjects, tells us that if you want to make England
self-supporting you have to do two things. You have to double the number of your sheep and
cattle"—whether you can or cannot do that I have not the smallest conception—" and
the next thing you have to do is to quadruple the present wheat production of the country." The
area under wheat cultivation in 1917 (and I believe it is the same now in 1920) was about
2,000,000 acres, and you would have to quadruple that. Every child of ten knows that four times
two is eight, and therefore you would have to get at least 6,000,000 acres more. We talk very
airily about millions in these days, but 6,000,000 acres—nobody knows how much that is.
Six million acres is 12,500 square miles of country, which you would have to get in England to
put under wheat. That is a startling proposition. I honestly think that it would demand the most
first-class wizard that you could lay your hands on, from Pharaoh's magicians to Maskelyne and
Cook, to get 12,500 square miles in this country to put under wheat in six weeks, in six months,
or in six years. Of course, the Prime Minister's plan went by the board.
Then what was to be done? Some agricultural Solomon said, "Oh, I have it; all we have to do is to
make the Corn Production Act permanent. I dare say a good many of your Lordships remember those
terrible times during the war when the Corn Production Act was brought into

1153
your Lordships' House, and it was given into the charge of Lord Milner, whom I am glad to see in
his place. And when he came to the guaranteed price of corn it rather staggered us as Free
Traders. But we remembered the splendid way in which the Opposition backed up Mr. Asquith and
Lord Grey when war was declared; we remembered the splendid way in which the working men of this
country came to out rescue, and slaved and toiled in the factories seven days in the week, ten
hours a day, month after month, and year after year; and who were we to make any opposition, or
to throw any difficulty in the way of a proposal made on the authority of His Majesty's
Government, and supposed to be absolutely necessary for the safety and welfare of this country?
And so we at once said, "Take all the land. We will back you up in any proposal that you make; we
will do all we can to help you; we will do everything in our power to stop these accursed Germans
from putting their filthy feet on English soil. We will do everything we possibly can to help
you. Only we ask you for one condition. Are you going to make this Bill permanent? Is it the thin
edge of the wedge to bring in Protection, or is it a war measure. Do you ever think of making it
permanent?" And the noble Viscount opposite said. "No, on my honour no." It is so important that
I will ask the House to forgive we while I read the exact words that were used in this House by
the noble Viscount. He said—
"The bonus—"
That is, the guarantee—
"is essentially a war policy. It is a war policy of the first necessity. It is an absolute necessity to leave no stone unturned to increase the homegrown supply of food in this country. It
is an emergency policy adopted under the pressure of extreme necessity, and I
think—"
I hope the House will listen to this—
"that every Free Trader can accept that declaration from His Majesty's Government, and
accept this bonus as simply and solely a temporary war expedient."
And now what have we got in print in this Bill? We are told that the object of the Bill is to
make this temporary measure permanent. I have no hesitation in saying that we, the Free Traders
of this country, look upon this as a distinct breach of faith. I hope I may be excused for
speaking plainly on this subject, but the noble Viscount opposite knows that in days gone
1154
by those with whom I have worked have not I seen eye to eye with him and his policy. But we have
always found the noble Viscount a perfectly clean fighter; we have always looked upon him as one
of the most honorable, honest, and upright men—a man who would be absolutely incapable of
any act of political legerdemain. And therefore I think we shall await his speech with very
considerable anxiety and interest, as there must be some hidden reason, some reason of vital
importance, which has made him change his mind on so important a subject as this, and made him
lend his countenance and support to turning a Bill which he himself in this House said was
temporary into a permanent one.
We are told that we must pass this Bill because the Labour Party and the Labour men are in favour
of it. Well, I have no earthly right to speak for the Labour Party, but I am told that they have
come into this frame of mind because they have been told and because they believe (which is so
extraordinary) that if guaranteed prices go the guaranteed living wages must go as well; that the
two things are balanced; that the two things go together—that if one goes the other must
go also. Now, my Lords, can you believe that? What would be the use of their new and well
organised labourers' trade union if that were the case? If, and only if—which I cannot for
one moment conceive possible—there were any determined attempt to bring agricultural wages
down again to their pre-war starvation level the agricultural labourers' union would take action
at once and they would be supported, and properly supported, by all the other Labour
organisations; and yet more, I think they would have the sympathy and the approval for their
action of seven men out of ten in this country. I cannot under any circumstances conceive that
the old horrible state of things which existed before the war should ever come into operation
again, a state of things which was not only a disgrace and a scandal but a danger to this
country.
What would the British public say about this balancing movement? If the British public once think
that tinder the present land tenure agricultural labourers cannot hope for a living wage unless
it is secured by a rise in the price of the nation's food, we shall have nationalisation of the
land—not the present nationalisation, not the nationalisation which means that if

1155
an unwilling owner refuses to part with his land for public purposes for what is an absolute
necessity to the community it may be taken from him and a proper price paid, but we shall have
nationalisation of the most stringent kind that it is possible to conceive. The fact would be
that proposals would be made to take the land from the people who are at present in possession of
it.
I have only one question to ask the Government. There was one thing which struck everybody, and
that was the way in which the noble Lord opposite, the Minister of Agriculture, omitted to say
anything of what the cost of this Bill would be. He skated over that thin ice very gingerly. I
want to ask His Majesty's Government one distinctive question. Whether they will answer it or not
I do not know, but I think on the answer to that question will depend a great deal the way in
which the vote will go on the Second Reading. I want to ask them, Can they tell us, dare they
tell us, how many millions this Bill will cost the country if it is once put into operation and
once gets into full swing? Will it cost £40,000,000? Will it cost £50,000,000? Or
will it cost £60,000,000? We know what the idea of millions is now; we will not be very
particular to £10,000,000; but we ask the Government to give us some slight idea of what
the cost of what I must call this most iniquitous Bill would be if it ever came into active
operation.
My last word is, Are you going to vote for a Bill of this sort? It is called an Agriculture Bill,
but it does not touch the fringe of agriculture. It is no more an Agriculture Bill than I am an
agricultural labourer. The Bill does not provide land for soldiers or for agricultural cottages,
or help small holdings or allotments. It fails to help the agricultural industry, as it does not
deal with scientific treatment or artificial fertilisers, nor does it provide anything for
agricultural education or research. It does not attempt to deal with the question of the
transport or distribution of food. It gives no real security of tenure as I think I have shown,
to the tenant farmer. Then what does it do? All it does is to interfere with and to annoy every
branch of the agricultural industry, to increase the price of food to an already overtaxed
nation, while it does not add one single acre to our wheat cultivation or give employment to
another agricultural labourer.
1156
I ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time—but not to-morrow before dinner; to
read it a second time in the dim and distant future, at the Greek Kalends, or, in plain English,
this day six months. That is the suggestion that I humbly make to your Lordships, and with all
respect and with equal confidence I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my
name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six
months").—(The Marquess of Lincolnshire.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE:My Lords, there is no doubt about
the importance of this Bill. I am afraid it is my permanent misfortune to disagree politically
with the noble Marquess who has moved the rejection, and I am afraid that there are certain
points in this Bill where I shall find myself also at variance with some of my noble friends
behind me whose co-operation and good opinion I so greatly value. But I should not be honest if I
did not state to your Lordships' House exactly why I stand here to support the Second Reading of
this Bill.
This Bill consists of two parts, only indirectly connected. The key word of the first part is
"guarantee and control"; the keyword of the second part is "security." First of all, I want to
say something about the principle which lies at the root of the first part of this Bill. I
understand that that principle is the increase of production for reasons connected with national
welfare and safety. I will only very briefly refer to national welfare as distinct from safety. I
understand that the Government feel increasing anxiety at the growing disproportion between the
rural and urban population in this country, and I must say I personally hold that view too. I
think it is a political and social danger that the political power of the rural population is so
constantly decreasing in proportion to that of the industrial population. The questions on which
I wish to say something are the considerations of national safety which I believe to be the
principles on which this Bill is based.
We all hope and pray that this country will never be engaged again in a great war like the one
from which we have recently emerged. But no man can be so rash as to say that that is impossible.
Therefore

1157
it is our duty as trustees of this generation to omit no precaution that will enable our children
and grandchildren, if they are forced to fight such a war, to emerge from it victoriously. It is
not possible, I quite agree, to foresee exactly the conditions under which a future war will be
fought. All we can do is to take precautions in our generation according to the light we have.
There are some people who think that in a future war twenty-five years hence there will be no
need for a Navy, or at any rate for any capital ships in a Navy. Personally I wholly disagree
with them. But who is going to be so rash as to say that because a Navy may be out of (late under
future conditions therefore the Admiralty ought to stop shipbuilding? It is exactly on the same
line of national defence that I approach this question of Part I of the Bill.
What will happen if this Bill is rejected and no Bill of the same kind takes its place, if we
relapse into the policy of laissez faire which existed before the war? It is not a case of
things remaining as they are. No; the process of the conversion of arable land to grass will go
on at an ever-increasing rate, and if war took place twenty-five years hence this country would
not find itself with the same proportion of grass and arable land as it had in 1914, but
something very much less. And why? Not because in my humble opinion grass fanning is more
remunerative than arable, but because it is sufficiently remunerative and at the cost of much
less risk and anxiety. Therefore to my mind the danger is that our children might be confronted
in a future war with a very small proportion indeed of land under the plough.
What would happen? We remember the risk we ran in the last war, but the number of submarines and
aerial craft that will be in existence at the beginning of a future war will be infinitely
greater than at the beginning or the end of the last war. Do not suppose that I think this
country can ever forego the importation of food. It is all a question of degree and proportion.
It will make the whole difference in the judgment of the Admiralty, as I understand, to the
future conduct of a war whether we have to import practically the whole of our corn stuffs or
only a proportion. If it is suggested—I think Lord Lincolnshire said so—that should
the same conditions
1158
occur again we must go through the same process of ploughing up, the answer is this, as I
conceive it. If the decrease of arable land takes place at the rate I have supposed you would not
have in this country the experience, the trained labour or the apparatus for tillage, and the
enemy would not give you the time for that improvisation which was possible under the conditions
of the last war.
Therefore Part I of this Bill rests, according to my conception, borne out if I may be permitted
a personal statement by my own experience at the Admiralty and Board of Agriculture, solely on
the conditions of national safety. This cannot be too often affirmed, because it is perfectly
certain that neither the agricultural landowner nor the agricultural occupier has ever asked for
any part of this Bill for his own sake. If it was consistent with national safety every single
one of them would only ask to be left alone. Therefore the case that the Government have to make
is the case, as I conceive it to be, I that this is a question not of the advantage to the owner
or occupier, but a question ' of national safety. That is all I am going to say about the
principle on which Part I is founded.
But a number of important questions will emerge. The first question is in respect of the
guarantee. Is the guarantee sufficient? Is it a basis on which a policy can be founded? Many of
your Lordships think it is not, and that is a proper and very necessary subject for discussion.
Then comes the question of control. If there is a guarantee, and if the basis of the policy is
national safety, obviously the Government must take precautions to see that the policy is
effective. That means control, and control is the most unpopular part of the whole of this Bill.
Every single owner and occupier dislikes control in any shape or form, and will only submit to it
if convinced that it is necessary for the national safety. Supposing that conviction be reached,
then your Lordships must examine carefully the proposals for control. Will they be effective? Are
they adequate? Are they excessive? Are the safeguards all that they should be for the legitimate
interests of the State, the owner and the occupier? Those are all questions which will emerge in
respect of Part I of the Bill.
Now I come to Part II, which deals with what has been termed security. Why is

1159
there any question of security or insecurity? Before the war there were certain rather advanced
advocates of the tenant farmers' views who asked for fixity of tenure, but the vast mass of
tenant farmers in this country felt that they had perfect security in the legitimate exercise of
their profession. Why therefore has this question of security emerged? It is because of the
enormous sales of land which have taken place. And why have the sales of land taken place? Simply
because the agricultural landowner could not afford to hold his land. Agricultural landowning has
been for a long time a very unprofitable form of investment. With the war came the war taxation,
and the owner found his position perfectly impossible. He found also that there was a market for
his land and, like a wise man, most legitimately he sold it.
The result on the tenant was unfortunate. It was doubly so because, most unfortunately as I have
always ventured to think, it became the practice for all owners, or most of them, who sold their
land to give notice to quit to all their tenants before the sale. As we are to a great extent a
House of owners it is only fair and right that the occupier's ease should be fully stated here in
the debate. The result was that many thousands of tenant farmers, greatly attached to their farms
and their homes, who never dreamed that so long as they fulfilled their contracts honourably they
would receive notice, did receive notice and in many cases were forced to quit. That was a great
shock to the whole of their social and family system. They received notice to quit in many cases
owing to the operations of syndicates formed to buy the land and to sell it so as to obtain the
greatest profit for the syndicates. I will not pursue this story further, because it is very
familiar to all your Lordships. The consequence was that this feeling of insecurity, which did
not exist before in any important measure, became general.
If your Lordships will pardon me, it is very important to state the case as between the owner and
the occupier fairly in this debate, because Part II depends so much on that question. Perhaps you
will permit me to state a little matter of history. When this question first became a burning
question, eighteen months to two years ago, the representatives of the Central Landowners'
Association ap-
1160
proached the National Farmers' Union and asked them whether the two bodies could not put their
heads together and endeavour to arrive at a settlement of the questions which were becoming
important and almost burning public questions. We said that except on the question of tenure we
saw no reason why there should not be complete agreement, but that we recognised, in respect of
tenure, that it might not be possible to come to an agreement, and in that case each party would
be free to go its own way and to take its own course unprejudiced by the discussion. That offer,
I greatly regret to say, was courteously but definitely refused, and from that day to this the
question has emerged rather as a controversy between these two classes who have so many common
interests in the land and between whom the mutual relations are on the whole so good.
But there has been a great deal of confused thought. The words "security of tenure" have been
constantly used by the National Farmers' Union which never has had fixity of tenure or dual
ownership as part of its programme. It has carefully avoided them in England, though I believe
the contrary is true of Scotland. Though these farmers disclaim, honestly and fully, any
intention of asking for fixity of tenure, yet they use the words "security of tenure" in a very
loose manner. If you come to think of it security of tenure really means fixity of tenure. There
cannot be full security of tenure without fixity of tenure; fixity of tenure means dual
ownership; and dual ownership, as all your Lordships would agree, is a most disastrous system. A
great deal of the difficulty which has arisen in this controversy has been due to looseness and
confusion of thought in the use of words. If any of your Lordships have taken the trouble to read
the evidence laid before the Royal Commission on Agriculture which sat last year you will have
seen from the questions asked and the cross-examination of witnesses how very confused are all
the ideas held on this question.
Now I must allude in this connection to some words I greatly regret were used the other day by
Mr. Langford, the Chairman of the National Farmers' Union, at Bristol. He was speaking in favour
of this Bill, and the assumption on his part was that this House would throw

1161
the Bill out. He is reported to have said that—
"His knowledge of the temperament of the farming community was this. If they did not get this very modest measure of security they would go straight for fixity of tenure or join the Labour Party and go in for ationalisation."
I do not think Mr. Langford really meant to try to bluff your Lordships' House. It would not be
courteous or respectful to him to think that. Nor can I for one moment believe that he really
contemplated that the National Farmers' Union would go in for fixity of tenure, because what does
fixity of tenure mean? It means fair rent and free sale, the transfer to the tenant of a large
proportion of the property of the landowner, created exclusively by himself and his predecessors
in title, without payment—a property to which the tenant has absolutely no legal or moral
claim. Knowing as I do the tenant farmers of England I do not think for one moment that they
would endorse any such proposition. Therefore I take it that what really is in Mr. Langford's
mind is that if he does not get this Bill he will go in for the nationalisation of land. On
another occasion it might be very interesting to discuss here what effect the nationalisation of
the land would have on the State or on the landowner. All I want to point out to agriculturists
is that to the farmer, to the cultivator of the soil, nationalisation means rivetting the yoke of
officialdom in its most complete and uncompromising form on his neck permanently.
What the occupier is entitled to is not fixity of tenure in any shape or form, but full security
for his capital legitimately invested; and approaching the Bill and its provisions in this
respect, let me remind your Lordships what are the relative positions of the landowner and
occupier to-day. Putting aside those fortunate owners of agricultural land who have other means
of supporting their property, and dealing only with that great body of squires who are dependent
upon their agricultural property for their subsistence, perhaps it was true before the war that
the squire was a comparatively rich man, and the substantial occupier was a comparatively poor
man. What is the position to-day? It is perfectly certain that the squire is the comparatively
poor man and the substantial farmer is the rich man Why? Because whereas during the war the
labourer increased his wages manyfold, and the farmer prospered greatly, and quite legitimately
1162
and to the national advantage, the landowner got no advantage out of the war whatever. His is the
proud record of having given everything and taken nothing. The consequence is that he now has to
sell his land.
And when you come to Part II of this Bill it is only fair and right to remember what has been the
experience of some of the landowners who have sold their land. I know that it has happened, again
and again, that an owner who has been forced to sell his land has with the greatest consideration
for the tenants not put his property up to auction. He has had it valued and sold it to the
tenants by private agreement, and then he has found, in case after case, that the tenant has gone
and resold the land at great profit. Is it wonderful, therefore, that he has been advised usually
to go to auction, and why should he not go to auction? That is the means of disposing of his
property which the occupier always uses when he sells his property off the farm. When the
Government is concerned in the matter in the capacity of trustee—either the Charity
Commission or the Education Department—I think they almost always insist that the land
should be put up to auction. Yet, my Lords, it has actually happened on several occasions that
there has been something like a not at an auction—certain farmers have combined to try and
stop the auction. There was a case decided in the Courts as recently as the 3rd of this month, by
Mr. Justice Lawrence, in which farmers who did this were properly punished. I deeply regret that
nobody else whose sale has been interrupted has taken the same proceedings as these people, who
have done a great public service by doing so. I know as a fact that these practices have had no
encouragement whatever from the Executive Council of the National Farmers' Union. They have set
their faces steadily against anything of the kind, as one would expect from the gentlemen who
compose that Council.
Why have I mentioned these things? Because it is really necessary in examining the provisions of
Part II to see what is the history of the matter, and how the case stands, because there are at
this moment spokesmen of the occupiers who are claiming something wholly unreasonable. They ask
to have all the advantages of the position of an owner, and all the advantages of the position of
an occupier,

1163
and none of the disadvantages of the position either of an owner or an occupier. Why do I say
that? Because these men, some of whom are making quite exaggerated demands for compensation on
disturbance, insist upon the right of leaving the farm at any moment they like on twelve months'
notice. The one thing they will not part with is the right to leave the farm whenever they like.
How does that bear upon this Bill? It means nothing less than this—that to the State, in
carrying out such a policy as is adumbrated in this Bill, the owner is a much more important
person than the occupier, because the occupier can run away, and will if times are bad, but the
owner cannot run away. The owner never can leave his property unless he can find somebody else to
take his place, and therefore if the Government want a policy permanently carried out the owner
is of more importance to them than the occupier, and the person who is of the greatest importance
of all is the owner-occupier, the man who is now, I am glad to say, numbered by many thousands in
this country—either the squire farming his own estate or a large portion of it, or the
farmer who has bought his farm. Between them they really form the class on which I think the
policy of the Government should be based.
What has been the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture? He has had the conflicting views of
the owner and the occupier put before him. To my knowledge he has listened to both with the
utmost patience and courtesy, and I hope you have noticed that in his speech the other night he
never used the words "security of tenure." The word he used was "security." Therefore I am quite
sure that he has approached this matter with strict impartiality, but nevertheless I hope he will
permit me to say that this Bill, in my judgment, sways the beam too far towards the occupier in
the interests of the State.
Let me read a paragraph from the Report of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee, over which I
had the honour to preside, and on the Report of which this Bill is to a large extent, though by
no means wholly, founded. This Bill awards, except in certain cases strictly defined, all
expenses of removal and one year's rent—not net rent but gross rent, which is a very
serious thing; it means perhaps four or five years' net rent—in
1164
every case of non-capricious disturbance, and it awards a maximum of four years' rent in cases of
capricious disturbance. There is of course no definition, and there can be no definition, of what
is capricious or what is non-capricious. I ask your Lordships to listen to paragraph 278 of the
Report of my Committee—
"It is generally agreed that the compensation allowed under the existing Acts is insufficient in cases of capricious disturbance. We are of opinion that in such cases the tenant might reasonably be allowed an additional year's profit, beyond that made during the year in which the notice to quit is running, in addition to the compensation for loss already allowed under the existing Act. In view, however, of the possibility of disagreement as to assessment of
profits, we prefer to base the additional compensation to be allowed on the rent paid, and we recommend the insertion, after 'entitled' in the above sections, of the following words, to a sum not exceeding one year's rent in addition to compensation for the loss or expense
directly attributable to his quitting the holding.'"
That was in the case of capricious disturbance, and that is exactly what this Bill awards in the
case of non-capricious disturbance.
What is going to be the result of that? This is a point that I want most particularly to press
upon my two noble friends opposite. I try to look at this matter entirely from the point of view
of the State, and not of that of the owner. The object of this Bill is to increase production and
to improve the class of farmer who farms the land. There are very good farmers in this country,
and there are very bad farmers. The very bad farmer is dealt with, but there is, and we all know
it, a large class of indifferent farmers, men whom in the interest of the State it would be much
better to get rid of in order to put good farmers in their places. How will the indifferent
farmer, the man who is not a palpable sloven, emerge from this Bill? I am afraid that he will be
rooted into his holding. With all the best intentions, the words of the Bill as they stand at
present will make it quite impossible for the ordinary landlord who wants to get rid of an
indifferent tenant and to put a better man in his place to do so. That is, perhaps, the most
serious flaw in Part II of this Bill.
Then I come to the case of the owner-occupier, whom I have already suggested is the most valuable
class in the whole country from the agricultural point of view. Take the case of a man who has
just bought his farm and farms it himself.

1165
A year or two hence he dies. His son is still a boy of fifteen or sixteen. That boy ought to
continue and finish his education. He ought to have his general education completed, and to go to
some agricultural college, and then take his place on his father's farm. Why should he be fined
one year's rent if his mother lets the farm for five or six years, and the man who takes it knows
quite well the family circumstances, and that the son will want the farm when he has finished his
education? It seems to me this is a very unfortunate and unjust handicap on the owner-occupier. I
apologise, my Lords, for having detained the House so long. I have tried to indicate some of the
facts which bear on the controversy that we are discussing, and some of the points which will
emerge for discussion in Committee, but from what I said at the beginning of my speech your
Lordships can have no doubt that if my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire goes to a Division I shall
vote against him.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Your Lordships will have noted
that the discussion of the Bill has so far been entirely confined to the Ministry of Agriculture
past and present. The Second Reading was moved by the noble Lord opposite, the Minister of
Agriculture, in a most masterly statement which clearly set before the House all the arguments
which have induced His Majesty's Government to deal with the question in this way at this moment;
and now my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire, who so honourably occupied a similar post in the past,
has moved the rejection of the Bill, and the noble Earl who has just sat down is, as we know, of
still more recent connection with the Department. My noble friend Lord Lincolnshire has moved the
rejection of the Bill, and we all know what his experience is, and also what his proved devotion
is to the cause of agriculture in all its relations; and therefore we may be sure that he has
considered the matter thoroughly before taking the responsibility of moving the rejection of the
Bill on Second Reading.
I may say at once that while I agree with many of the criticisms which my noble friend made, and
while I disagree to sonic extent with the particular support of the Bill which has been given by
my noble friend who has just sat down, yet I do not feel justified in joining my noble friend in
voting against the Second Reading. In the
1166
first place, I think it will be generally held by your Lordships' House that it is a very serious
matter here—although I confess your Lordships have not always shown it in the past where
sonic of out measures were concerned—to reject on Second Reading, and with only the sort
of discussion and examination which can be given on a Second Reading, a measure to which the
House of Commons has given much attention and upon which it has spent a great deal of time. But
apart from that, I happen to have the honour at this moment to be Chairman of the Central Chamber
of Agriculture, which is the most generally representative of all the agricultural bodies in that
it contains many representatives of the landowning class, many tenant farmers, including a number
of members of the National Farmers' Union, many land-agents, and, in fact, all sections connected
with landowning except the agricultural labourers, though we should be exceedingly glad if the
agricultural workers' unions would join our body and add force to our deliberations. In that
capacity I should be extremely unwilling to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which
professes to be, and indeed is, an amending measure of the existing Agricultural Holdings Acts.
There are many points on which I think the Bill should be amended and on which close examination
is required, but I feel that to reject; it without such examination would not be a proper step
for any one to take who is entitled to speak in any sense as a representative of agricultural
opinion at this moment. These two Bills— because Part I and Part II are really two
Bills——
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: —are somewhat loosely
connected, and I think it would have been more profitable if they had been brought in as distinct
measures. I do not see any close link of cohesion between them. We cannot deny that so far as
Part is concerned it does finally pronounce the doom of the independent system of British
farming. I think that is not putting it too strongly, because in order to avoid collective
ownership—and we understand that is one of the stated purposes of His Majesty's
Government—it sets up a system of something very like collective management or, if that is
too strong a term, a form of collective superintendence which is not applied to any other
industry what-

1167
ever. And the alleged reason is that which has been so strongly advanced by the noble Earl who
spoke last—namely, that this question of arable farming has to be regarded as a definite
part of national defence, in the sense that the land of this country must be regarded as a kind
of adjunct to the Army and Navy with a view to its becoming a source of supply in time of war.
One is almost inclined to observe that the proper person to preside over the Ministry of
Agriculture must be the Quartermaster-General of His Majesty's Army rather than the noble Lord
who so capably fills that place. If this argument is to be pressed to the whole length to which
my noble friend behind me seems disposed to press it, I do not think that is putting the matter
too strongly.
It is assumed, I think, that the late war taught us certain lessons, and the lesson which we
apparently ought to have learned is that although the Navy can retain the command of the sea so
far as the protection from invasion of these Islands is concerned, yet so far as the protection
of commerce and the convoying of supplies is concerned we must be said, in a certain sense at any
rate, to have lost the command of the sea; or if we can retain it at all it is only at such vast
and almost incalculable expense that different measures have to be taken if our national
existence is to be maintained. I mention incalculable expense because of the estimated figure
which my noble friend mentioned, which I had also seen, that it cost £20,000,000 to
destroy each German submarine. Therefore, my Lords, something in the nature of the Corn
Production Act of 1917 has, according to those who hold those views, to be continued, and that is
the purpose and object of the guarantees mentioned in the Bill.
I take very much the same view about the whole question of compulsory corn growing and of
guarantees as is taken by my noble friend the Marquess of Lincolnshire. I cannot bring myself to
be convinced by the arguments so powerfully advanced by my noble friend the Earl of Selborne. If
he is right and we really are, if not beleaguered, at this moment liable to be beleaguered almost
completely at very short notice—if you admit those premises then, no doubt, there is much
to be said for the view advanced by my noble friend. But even with all the modifications of the
Act of 1917 which this Bill contains it is admitted by the noble Lord opposite and
1168
lamented by my noble friend behind me that there remains a vast amount of direct interference
with the farming industry. The effect of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause
4—
(b) that the production of food on any land can, in the national interest and
without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land, be maintained or increased by
the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of
the land for arable cultivation
does, of course, involve that direct interference. I understand from what the noble Lord opposite
said in his opening speech that this power of ordering ploughing, to put it plainly, is so fenced
about and so safeguarded by every manner of appeal that nobody need be considered to be
endangered by it. One is inclined to consider that if it is so very important that there should
be a large amount of ploughing and at very short notice, the noble Lord may be wrong to have
fenced the possibility about in such a way as to make it extremely difficult to realise. If, on
the other hand, it is really so difficult to get a ploughing order through I would ask the noble
Lord whether it is worth while to keep in the Bill at all a provision which has undoubtedly
agitated a great number of people, and filled different agricultural societies with the most
acute alarm if, after all, it is not likely to be freely used or very effective in practive.
I would remind the noble Lord—I cannot think that his Department have quite realised
it—that here this one industry is going to be permanently made the subject of public
inspection is a way in which no other industry in this country ever has been or apparently will
be. We are, of course, familiar with inspection by public authorities, but that inspection is
carried out in different instances sometimes with a view of safeguarding the health of those
engaged in the industry, sometimes (as for instance the case of manufactures of explosives and
others) in the interests of the public safety, and sometimes in other instances to avoid the
creation of a public nuisance. But there is no instance so far as I know where public inspection
takes place in order to ensure a certain amount of production or a particular kind of production.
I do not think it is possible to find an industry which is thus, in a sense, subjected to a sort
of bastard nationalisation (if I may so call it) in that

1169
manner. And I cannot help thinking that when your Lordships consider this Bill in
Committee—if you pass the Second Reading—this particular part of Clause 4 (1) will
be subjected to very close consideration indeed.
Supposing my noble friend Lord Selborne is right—and I assume that the Government share
the same view, that there is a possibility of a sudden war on a large scale—we need not at
this moment consider with whom such a war is or can be waged; but, assuming that such a thing is
possible, we have to ask, Do the provisions of the Bill as they stand meet the case? Shall we,
even if the Bill is passed as it stands, be very much better off in the way of corn production
than we were in 1914? That, I think, is a point of some importance. In some ways we shall be less
favourably situated, because in 1914 there was a great deal of pasture land which later was
ploughed up, which contained it is true in some cases wireworm, but also contained very valuable
and important elements of ancient fertility which tended, particularly in the absence of
artificial manures, to produce relatively heavy crops, if not in the first season, at any rate in
the second.
VISCOUNT MILNER: In 1914?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No, I said when ploughing began
after 1914. Of course, so far as that land has been ploughed, whether it remains arable or
whether it has been laid down again into very inferior grass, it has parted with its particular
quality, and pro tanto you would be in a worse position. On the other hand, you are no
doubt in a better position in this respect that by having increased your arable area you have
probably more individuals who can plough, and you possess more implements for the purpose, but
whether that addition of power is sufficient to put you in a very much better position as regards
the production of a crop of wheat, assuming for the moment that the wheat is not in the ground, I
think is open to question. Or, to put the matter in another way, unless you have actually got
your land under wheat you are not in a very much better position because it is now arable than
you would be if it was good pasture. My point is that His Majesty's Government do not, I think,
venture to go as far as they would like to go—namely, by enforcing a certain portion of
compulsory wheat-growing in this
1170
country; and if His Majesty's Government share the views of Lord Selborne, which I consider
somewhat unduly alarmist, they ought, I think, to have stiffened their Bill a good deal in this
direction. Because, as matters stand, if a great war were to be sprung upon us at short notice I
cannot help feeling that, Bill or no Bill, Act or no Act, we should run the risk, so far as wheat
is concerned, of being caught short (as they say in the City) very much as we were in the autumn
of 1914.
We know, of course (it is familiar to everybody who has studied these subjects at all), the
objections to wheat storage. It has been carefully considered, and anything like a large system
of storage has been, as I understand, in the main rejected by the experts. But I cannot help
thinking that, as matters stand, it would be worth the while of His Majesty's Government to
consider, if they share the views of my noble friend Lord Selborne, whether they ought not to
combine the provisions of this Bill with some other provisions which would ensure the existence
of a six months' supply (or whatever it might be) of wheat in the country at a given
moment—if they really believe that a sudden outbreak of war has to be guarded
against.
I need say very little about Part II of the Bill, which brings one, of course, into a completely
different atmosphere. We all know what the English land system depends upon—how under that
system of landlord and tenant, as we have known it, generally speaking a major part of the farm
is supplied by the landlord in the form of the permanent improvements and he makes himself
responsible for the complete maintenance of those permanent elements of the farm. The changes
that have taken place in our land system owing to the great number of sales which have taken
place have been described by previous speakers. I certainly myself do not dispute that some
amendment of the law is needed in the direction of strengthening the Agricultural Holdings Act.
The one thing—I entirely agree with my noble friend who spoke last—if you are going
to maintain our present system, is to avoid the creation of a separate tenant's interest in the
land—that is to say, the creation of a saleable tenant right, whether it be goodwill or
however you may choose to describe it, which would take us some way down the slope which led to
the Irish system

1171
known as the three F.'s, and to the ultimate necessity for State purchase.
Here I am probably not in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire. He, I think,
casts a more favourable eye on what is known in the strict sense as fixity of tenure than I do,
because I consider it altogether incompatible with the maintenance of the English land system as
we know it. What is meant by security of tenure—used, as Lord Selborne truly said, in a
somewhat loose sense—as described in this Bill, is a state of things which will make a
landowner think twice before he changes a tenant without good cause. It is rather in the nature,
as I take it, of a deterrent to the landowner who may wish to make a change for a reason which
may seem good to him but does not involve any failure on the part of the occupier. Looking at
this greatly vexed clause, subsection (5) of Clause 8, I agree with the previous speaker that the
one year's compensation is a highly illogical method of compensating an outgoing tenant, and also
it cannot be disputed that in some cases it is bound to inflict much hardship, upon small
landowners particularly. At the same time I confess that, as matters stand, I should not attempt
to remove this provision from the Bill, and for this reason—that in the original scheme of
the Bill, and certainly in some of the Amendments that were moved in another place, there was an
attempt to establish compensation not merely for the expenses of removal but for what could only
be described as the goodwill of the farm that was being dealt with. Once you start down that
slope you are creating a dual interest, and therefore, illogical though this one year's rent is
and unfairly as I have said it would work sometimes, yet I would sooner agree to its retention in
the Bill than leave the matter open for the insertion of other words, plausible enough in
themselves, but which would contain the germ of what I consider is a very dangerous principle. On
the other hand, I am not at all sure, in Clause 14, that what is described as continuous good
farming does not rather tend to create something in the nature of a good will, and it has to be
regarded with great suspicion on that ground. It has always seemed to me an absolutely
indefensible proposal in itself, and I confess I shall not be sorry if it disappears from the
Bill in the course of its progress through your Lordships' hands.
1172
I have pointed out that I do not think it right to oppose the Bill although I take as strong an
exception as anybody could to the greater part of Part I, to the whole system of the fixed
prices, guarantees, and attempts to create an artificial system of wheat-growing in this country.
On the other hand, as I say, I think that the second part of the Bill deserves and ought to
receive close examination and support in its main features. I am sorry to part company for once
with my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire, but I am sure he will understand that it is not from any
want of appreciation of his interest in agriculture, but simply through a difference of opinion
as to the probable effect of the passing of some provisions of this Bill, and even more the
probable effect of its rejection by your Lordships' House.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I think I almost ought to apologise
to the noble Marquess who has just sat down for following him as yet another ex-President of the
Board of Agriculture. This Bill, has come into this House as an unwelcome guest to all
appearance, but the first point that I would make is that if it is an unwelcome guest it is not
an unbidden one. It has come here with a very strong and a very pressing invitation. The ink was
hardly dry on the signature of the Armistice before a demand was made by agriculturists from
every part of the country for an immediate declaration of the Government's policy towards
agriculture. At that time the Government was immersed in peace negotiations. For ten months I had
plenty of opportunity of knowing how strong, how persistent, was the demand, and how it went on
increasing in volume. Now in fulness of time the Government accedes to that request, it fulfils a
pledge, it discharges a promise, it frames a policy, and that policy is in the Bill.
I confess for my part that if a policy is to be framed by a Coalition Government I cannot
conceive what lines it could follow other than those contained in the Bill. I would remind your
Lordships that the only other policy which is at present in the political field is
nationalisation. If I might make one other point from that waiting period in the early months of
1919, it is this. A Commission of Inquiry over the whole range of agriculture was demanded. It
was pushed strongly by the Labour Party in the Labour newspapers. It was taken up by influential
agriculturists in the

1173
other House. A Resolution was passed on the subject, and although for my own part the one thing I
wanted was to keep the air cool and the field clear, I had to give way. I dreaded a repetition of
the Coal Commission, and therefore the Commission was appointed with the most strict terms of
reference and with a very peculiar constitution, on which I different I from the noble Earl, Lord
Selborne. No representatives of the land-owning interests were placed upon that Commission. That
was quite deliberate. I felt that if they were there it would enlarge the scope of the inquiry,
and we confined it to the one particular point of prices which is embodied in the Bill. I want to
make this comment. If that Commission had been granted with extended terms of reference, and if
it had been constituted as the Coal Commission was constituted, I am quite certain that, the
reception which has been given to this Bill by agriculturists would have been profoundly
modified. You would have found how strong, how bitter, and how far reaching are the feelings upon
the subject contained in this Bill. I believe that you will, as I do, recognise in this Bill a
perfectly genuine effort to effect a working compromise between opposing and conflicting
forces.
I quite agree with the criticisms which have been offered on the Bill in some parts. I do not
agree with the whole of it, and I shall point out one particular in which I differ from it
essentially. But I want to pursue for a moment the point that it is a working compromise between
conflicting forces. I will follow the order which Lord Lincolnshire pursued and take first the
relations of landlord and tenant and ask you to see how the Bill is a compromise between two
conflicting forces. The one essential and vital principle of the relations between landlord and
tenant is that there should be one owner and one owner only. I had plenty of experience of the
force with which the opposite principle was urged upon the Government in my time, and I am
perfectly certain that the noble Lord has had a still more recent experience of the same kind.
The Bill does not give way on that point. Fixity of tenure with dual ownership is not given. What
is given is this—perhaps it is a better phrase than security of tenure—continuity
of tenure is strengthened and compensation is payable upon its interruption. That is the
principle upon which the Bill proceeds. This
1174
part of the Bill, of course, is going to depreciate the selling value of land. On the other hand
it is going to make land easier to let, and you will have saved this vital principle of single
ownership. There you have the balance fairly drawn, although I shall allow myself some latitude
in criticising and perhaps voting on some of the clauses on that point.
The second part deals with production. I will not go into the war side of that question, because
it has been emphasised by Lord Lee of Fareham and also by Lord Selborne. But again you have this
balance of compromise. No one with any practical knowledge of agriculture can pretend that the
maintenance of arable farming, which is the essence of this part of the Bill, is anything, or may
even turn out to be anything, but a depreciation of the value of land. Quite obviously it is so.
Grass land is cheaper to cultivate, does not involve such a large outlay of capital, reduces the
labour bill, and reduces also the anxiety and risks from weather or foreign competition. It is
therefore to your interests, where you have the alternative, to turn arable land into grass, and
the Government recognise that it is getting national advantages at the expense of those who own I
and occupy arable land.
But arable farming also gives you the power of employing more labour, maintaining a larger rural
population on the land for the benefit of the national health and preventing the increasing
congestion of the towns. Those are big national advantages. I do not think they can be disputed.
You put the two against one another, and the nation comes forward and says, "We see that you are
going to sacrifice your commercial advantages (those of you who farm your land as arable) and,
therefore, we will come forward not to maintain your profits but to prevent your substantial
loss, and at the point where profit ends and loss begins we will step in and shoulder the
burden." You set your gains as citizens against your gains as men of business; it is a matter of
compromise and it would be very difficult to say on which side the balance lies.
There is also this further effect of the maintenance of arable farming. I do not wish to discuss
but merely to state the attitude of the industrial classes in the towns towards agricultural
land. They

1175
undoubtedly regard it, whether it is in private ownership or not, as a national asset for the
production of food and the employment of labour. They ask that if the existing system breaks down
on these two points another system must be established. The Bill does meet those arguments. In
the first place, as to the production of food it meets it in two ways. It meets it by a clause
relating to arable farming and the provision for enforcing good cultivation. In spite of what the
noble Marquess has said I hope the clauses for the enforcement of good cultivation will not be
whittled away so as to become ineffective. But the point on which the townsmen lay most stress,
and dread beyond anything else, is that the rural population will be forced, either by inadequate
wages or actual want of work, to flock into the towns to compete in the industrial labour market.
That is the dread which haunts them and again the Bill meets that point. It meets it by the Wages
Board and by the maintenance of arable farming, and it is because all the way through these
fiercely conflicting forces are met and a working compromise established that, on the general
outlines of the Bill, I support it.
The noble Marquess raised a point which seems to me the most difficult in the whole
Bill—namely, the power to increase arable cultivation in Part IV. I feel very strongly on
that portion of the Bill. Fortunately it comes quite early in the measure, and it will depend on
the way in which we are treated by the Government on that point whether I give them the support
that I should like to give to the rest of the Bill. I feel that it is a very dangerous power to
place in the hands of the Minister and of Committees on Agriculture who—we hope
not—may be determined to turn the vice and by means of that power to eject the landlord,
or the tenant, or both from the land. It is as if your Lordships were to find an Order issued
that you were to live in every room of your houses, to have fires lighted all day long, and so
many servants. You could not live; you would have to give up your houses. Just in the same way
that power, if it exists as it is now, in spite of the appeals to the arbitrators, could be used
to compel a man to employ so much labour upon his land that he positively could not live.
Therefore that, to my mind, is one of the crucial points in the Bill.
I have tried to be as brief as I could and have left out a vast number of points on
1176
which I should like to say something, but I am not going into other and further details. I would
only say in conclusion that I believe that if you reject this Bill on Second Reading you will
relieve the Government from a pledge and you will disappoint a vast portion of the agricultural
community of the help that they expect, and will leave them, with all the dangerous uncertainty
of present prices, face to face with nothing to help them but the altogether obsolete and
inadequate guarantees of the existing Corn Production Act. I shall support the Second Reading of
the Bill, and in consequence shall have to oppose the Amendment of the noble
Marquess.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord
who has just sat down has announced his intention of voting in any case for the Second Reading of
the Bill—the unwelcome guest—without having waited to get some kind of assurance
from His Majesty's Government that some notice will be taken of his protest and of the protests
which will be made from other quarters of the House against parts of this Bill which some of us
believe to be very detrimental, if not impossible. After the "S.O.S." to the noble Earl, Lord
Selborne, of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading a week ago, I expected the noble Earl to
come down here clad in a smock frock, with a cocked hat and sword, dragged in a harvest cart,
escorted by a bevy of land girls; and probably drawn by blue jackets. I am somewhat suspicious of
consultations between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Admiralty, because I think the
consultations between the two Departments may lead the Minister of Agriculture to be more in
favour of rigid control than he would have been otherwise.
Personally, I am still very much in doubt as to the real purpose of the Bill. The original idea
was that it was going to produce more food and that the consumer would benefit. Now, apparently,
the Government have dropped all their power to make a man plant wheat or oats. That seems to me
to knock production of food on the head, certainly as regards the consumer. We are told that the
Bill is to employ more labour. I am rather sceptical as to whether it will be successful in doing
that. I think that will depend more upon the seasons we have in this country than upon any
legislation. I do not know if the object of the Bill is to

1177
transfer something, as was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, from the pocket of the
landowner to that of the tenant farmer, but there is a point with reference to this Bill of which
I hope your Lordships will not lose sight. It is more than a point in connection with the Bill;
it is a point in the national finances of the country.
In the Estimates for the year 1913–14 those of the Board of Agriculture were less than
£900,000. In the Estimates for 1920–21 they were very nearly £3,000,000, and
if you add to that the expenses which have been incurred in various matters such as land
settlement, forestry, the Corn Production Act and county committees, you will reach a total of
over £6,000,000. On the top of this I understand that there are expenses with reference to
flax growing in the country, and now we come to this Bill. In addition to these swollen Estimates
you have snore expenditure from imperial taxation and local rates for the carrying out of this
measure. The Minister of Agriculture in his speech said that a good deal of rhetoric had been
used about the number of fresh officials who would be created, but that, so far as he was
concerned, there would be very few, beyond special Commissioners and, I think he said, certain
assistants to help the crop reporters at various times of the year. But the noble Lord the whole
time ignored the expenses of the county committees
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: They are in another
Bill.
LORD HINDLIP: It is true they come under another Bill,
but this is the Bill which is going to impose the duties on those committees and this Bill is
going to be worked by those committees. I think I am justified in saying that. I have alluded to
the swollen Estimates, and I hope I have not been out of order in doing so. The noble Lord spoke
of the attitude of the House of Commons with reference to the Bill. I think he said that no large
majority had been produced against it. That is perfectly true, but some very hard words were used
against the measure in the House of Commons, especially against control of cultivation. If I may
take one instance, I find that Colonel Mildmay on November 15 said—
"Honestly, and I think this must be admitted, farmers are aghast at the perpetuation of outside dictation as to the methods of cultivation, and
1178
rightly so when we remember the costly mistakes which were made on all sides during the war in connection with the Ploughing Orders."
The National Farmers' Union, through their executive, have certainly given their support to this
Bill, but I do not think the Union must be quoted as being in entire favour of all its clauses. I
find that Mr. Cutts, a member of the executive—I am not quite certain whether he is
President-Elect for next year—describes the Bill as "one of the most contentious pieces of
agricultural legislation ever introduced." He added—
"The Farmers' Union had been watching the Bill because there was so much in it they did not want. There was a lot in the Bill that they knew would not be beneficial to agriculture, and it would have been far better for the Farmers' Union to have left it to the Government than to become a sort of godfather to something they did not want. The Bill in its administration would interfere with the freedom of the farmer and with the good of the industry, and he was dead
against perpetuating such wartime measures in times of peace. The whole phase of agriculture had altered during the last few years, and there were thousands of farmers who were now their own landlords, which was a serious alteration."
I think a very good alteration.
So far as I am concerned with the Bill, I am more concerned with the part of Clause 4 which gives
the Government control over cultivation. The argument that the Government are entitled to assume
control if they give a guarantee is a perfectly good argument. The man who can pay the piper is
certainly entitled to call the tune. The noble Lord says quite frankly that in no circumstances
can the guarantee bring profit to the farmer. To begin with, the guarantee will be based, I
imagine, upon the average cost of corn-production in the United Kingdom, while the cost and
yields will vary in different parts of the country. Again, by the time the farmer has grown his
wheat—I do not say sold it, because that may take him some considerable time—I do
not see that there is any guarantee that he will ever sell it. In this country millers take a
great deal, I think two-thirds, of foreign wheat to one-third English wheat; they are very often
full and cannot take the farmers' wheat, and if you are going to continue this control of
cultivation and make farmers plough up pasture land in order to grow something which they may not
be able to sell, you are not going to get many thanks from them. In that case, if wheat is held
up for a considerable time before it is sold, and the

1179
armer has to wait until the Government chooses to pay the guarantee, I think it may involve him
in very considerable loss, even if it is only the interest on his money while he is kept out of
it, and the loss of his working capital for that time.
The guarantee can come to an end if the Government give four years' notice. If you insist upon
retaining this control of cultivation, it is quite conceivable that the noble Lord opposite or
his successor may issue control orders to plough up a great deal of grass land, with the result
that when the guarantee stops the farmers will have lost their pasture, their land may be dirty
and foul—they may have had bad seasons—and it will take them years to get the land
clean and down again to good pasture. The picture that one can conjure up if this control is kept
and acted upon is one which may for the farmer be a very black one. I should be very sorry, I
admit, to see the control of good husbandry and clean land lost, but I think the Government
should be content with that, and personally, unless the Government will give us some assurance
that they will be content with the control of good husbandry and have no intention of continuing
any ploughing orders, I shall find myself unable to do anything except vote against the Second
Reading of the Bill.
Certain people pay great attention and attach a great deal of importance to the guarantee. I
think very likely the guarantee will be called upon a great deal sooner than people thought would
be the case not many months ago, and when the taxpayer is called upon to foot the bill, and he
does not find it produces a great deal more corn in this country, I do not think the guarantees
will have a very long life. We must always remember that we are an industrial country. In
introducing this Bill the noble Lord talked about the 4,000,000 acres that have gone out of
arable cultivation since 1874. Those who talk of these 4,000,000 acres quite lose sight of the
fact that the amount of land available in this country for any cultivation is not what it was in
1874. There have been towns built and railways and all kinds of things made, and, unless I am
very much mistaken, in the Ministry of Agriculture Returns for last year I notice that no fewer
than 220,000 acres of land went out of cultivation altogether in this country in one year. I
believe that if the Government want corn grown in this country they
1180
can get it to a reasonable and certain extent, but I do not think that they are going to get it
by control or enforcement of their orders. You must either embark upon a very much larger
agricultural policy on the lines existing on the Continent, or you may, I think you probably can,
be assured of a certain amount of corn grown in this country if you will enter into contracts
with the farmers to grow you a certain number of quarters for a given number of year at a given
price, based upon the cost o cultivation plus some margin, 10 per cent. or something like
that, for profit. I think that along those lines something might be explored. So much for Part I
of the Bill.
If I may I will detain you a few moments longer on Part II. I confess that I am not so vitally
interested in Part II as personally I am in Part I. You have torpedoed the landlord. The landlord
up to now has been the fount of supplies for the farmer. He has been the supply ship, so to
speak, for the submarine. Now if Part II of this Bill remains as it is at present you will make
the agriculture seas too dangerous for the landlord to sail his supply ships on, and when the
submarine comes up in bad times you will find that the landlord's supply ship is empty, and that
no relief can be given to the farmer from where he has always been accustomed to look for it He
will be forced to go to neutral sources for supplies which will be found very expensive.
The alternative to this Bill we are told is nationalisation or fixity of tenure. The idea of
nationalisation leaves me quite cold. If His Majesty's Government see fit to take steps to
nationalise the land, they are of course quite at liberty to do so as long as the taxpayers and
the voters will allow them to do it, but if they assume control of the land under a scheme of
nationalisation they will also at the same time have to assume the whole of the liabilities that
are at present borne by the owner. That in their present Bill they seem extremely unwilling to
do. As to the other policy of fixity of tenure, I cannot regard it as a serious contribution to
our discussions. Fixity of tenure has been tried and found wanting in the distressful country,
and I cannot even now believe that His Majesty's Government are so bankrupt of ideas that the
only alternative they can offer to this Bill is a system more or less akin to one which has been
a notorious failure.

1181
The noble Lord said the other day that there was unrest and rumblings. That is perfectly true.
The sales of estates, of which the Farmers' Union complains so much, have done a great deal to
allay that unrest, and very likely they have done something to prevent an upheaval. As to unrest
among tenant farmers I should think that in most cases they have been given the opportunity of
purchasing their land, and what they are really out for now is the trade union idea of keeping
the land so that they can have more or less the absolute control of it. They desire that nobody
shall go on the land unless he is a member of the National Farmers' Union, that no young man who
wishes to become a farmer, no person with capital or ideas who wishes to take a farm, and no
person who wants to retire on to a farm shall be allowed to go on the land unless the National
Farmers' Union give their consent. The sales of land have provided access to land, and the
Ministry of Agriculture and local authorities have been able to obtain land without litigation
and at a moderate price.
The Prime Minister, on November 15, in the House of Commons, also referred to unrest, saying,
"This country is a little top-heavy; the percentage of people on the soil is a very small one."
That is perfectly correct, but I do not think that this Bill is going to do anything to remedy
it. I think it is going to do the reverse. The process of diverting the ownership of the soil
from the few to the many has been going on for some considerable time, and there could not be
anything more desirable than that the number of landowners in this country should be increased so
as to insure the stability and prevent the further decrease of the rural population. The Prime
Minister has no doubt taken up this Bill with the same enthusiasm and good faith with which he
took up the land values clauses in the Budget of 1909, but I hope he has not forgotten that those
clauses have been dropped. He listened to the voices of the charmers in 1909, and he is listening
to the same interested class of advisers to-day, with the result that if Part II of this Bill is
passed unamended it will be disastrous to the real ideas of the Prime Minister.
What the Prime Minister, I gather, wishes to see is a much larger portion of the population
wedded to the land, sharing
1182
its fortunes and responsibilities. This Bill proposes that the State shall have full control and
no responsibility. It proposes that the State shall be able to impose all kinds of Orders that
may result in utter disaster without incurring any liability. The proper policy for the
Government to take up, if they wish to carry out the Prime Minister's ideas, is to legislate in
the interests of the occupying-owner, the person who is wedded to the soil and cannot escape his
responsibilities. What this Bill does is to ignore the interests of the occupying-owner. It
simply legislates in the interests of a certain class of persons who wish, so to speak, to avoid
the matrimonial bond with the land, and only desire to enter into a kind of temporary matrimonial
alliance from which they can escape at any movement should the prospects not exactly please them,
or should they for some reason wish to give up their farms. They can obtain relief from any
alliance that they have entered into by giving notice to the other partner, whereas if the other
partner, the landlord, wishes to escape from his liability in the partnership he is immediately
mulcted in heavy penalties and his position is made impossible. He can be called upon to erect
new buildings and new houses; indeed, there is no limit to what he may be called upon to do. This
will make it quite impossible for landowning as a business to continue, and it will have very
injurious effects on the credit of the land. I cannot conceive of any one lending money on a farm
that is let to a tenant when the tenant has only got to go to a county committee—it is
true he has to go to an arbitrator—to get any kind of new building put up. If he succeeds
in getting new buildings put up at very heavy cost it is quite conceivable that the greater part
of the value of the land will disappear altogether from the point of view of the security of the
mortgagor.
If the Government was content to keep control of the repairs of existing buildings so that a farm
is kept in tenantable repair for the purposes for which it was let, then I think that is as far
as they should go and that the Bill would not be objectionable in that part of it. But if they
insist on keeping control of new buildings and also in mulcting the owner in such extremely heavy
penalties as they propose under the Bill it will make the position of the landowner quite
impossible, it will force more land into the market than has ever been forced before, it will
increase unrest and have a very injurious effect on the

1183
agricultural industry. In conclusion, I sincerely hope that before the Division takes place
to-morrow His Majesty's Government will tell us that they see their way to meet us in some shape
or form on the lines I have indicated so that we may not have to vote against the Second Reading
of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I am afraid it is rather
tedious to your Lordships when the arguments or criticism are all on one side. Up to the present
I think no one, except my noble friend who moved the Second Reading, has said anything directly
in support of the Government proposals.
NOBLE LORDS: The Earl of Selborne and Lord
Ernle.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Well, their support was very
half-hearted. I would not trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence except that I have had as long
an experience as most of your Lordships in the practical management of property. It is now thirty
years since I first had an interest in the management of one of the largest estates in this
country, and one which I think I am justified in saying has not a bad reputation, either among
the tenants who are on it or with those who live by its side. Although I have only been a member
of your Lordships' House for six years, for many years before I succeeded I had the practical
control, or perhaps I may call it the position of managing director of the estate. Therefore,
although I wish to be modest, like my noble friend opposite, and do not pretend to be a great
agriculturist, I think I have had some experience of the advantages, the disadvantages, and the
difficulties that there are in managing land and in getting proper results from it.
My noble friend opposite said quite rightly that this was not a question for your Lordships to
consider in the light of self-interest. It would be quite misinterpreting him if I suggested that
he insinuated in any way that that would be so. He also said there are obligations in the
ownership of land, and I quite agree with him. From my earliest boyhood it has been a tradition
in my family that the owner of the family property was always looked upon and should look upon
himself as trustee for life, and, above all, that whilst he was owner he had a great
responsibility and
1184
a great duty to the country and it was not his interests but those interests he had to have
chiefly in mind. Although I admit that during my experience it has not been anything like as
successful as I could have wished, I have endeavoured—as I believe most of your Lordships
have who take an interest in managing land—to obtain the greatest production from that
land that was economically possible, to employ on it as many people as was economically possible,
and as far as possible to put the land to the best use to which it is fitted, it may not always
be in agriculture but in plantations perhaps.
My noble friend opposite said that this Bill holds the field and he is quite correct. So does any
other Government Bill, because it is quite impossible for any private member to introduce a Bill
of this nature I think this Bill is rather premature. If we had waited a little longer until
matters had become more settled it would have been better, but we know, and I think it has been
one cause of a lot of trouble lately, that when any one is appointed Minister unless he produces
some big measure he is supposed to be doing nothing. Your Lordships know very well—at
least those who have sat on the Front Bench—that producing a Bill and carrying it through
both Houses is not by any means the hardest part of a Minister's work, and that many of them are
doing excellent work which the public never sees.
This Bill has been described as, among other things, the Farmer's Charter. I think the best name
that can be given it is the Bad and Lazy Farmer's Salvation. I hope that others may gain by it
too. Then there is the other point which has been alluded to, about food in war time. My noble
friend said that in spite of their patriotism farmers in 1915 did not produce very much more
food. I think I am right in saying—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am
wrong—that his Committee on the necessity for greater food production was torpedoed
because the Admiralty at that time stated there was no great danger to our supplies from
submarine warfare, which simply knocked the bottom out of increased production in agriculture to
a large extent at that time.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: What is the date of
that?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: In 1915 and
1916.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Yes, but we regretted it
afterwards.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: When we come to 1917 we hear a
very different story. What happened? The Admiralty which informed the public that there was no
danger from submarine warfare, in 1915 was, I think, the Admiralty that was in office before the
submarine warfare commenced in its virulent form, and one of the great reasons why we suffered so
much from that submarine warfare was that the Admiralty did not take proper measures of
precaution to begin with. The noble Lord gave us an account of the number of ships sunk by
submarines and the cost of sinking submarines. I have not the figures by me at the moment, but I
have noticed that Ministers often produce these things no doubt in perfectly good faith though it
is impossible to correct them, but it seems to me they are produced for very useful purposes. On
the other hand, whenever information is wanted from the Admiralty or War Office or from any other
Department for the public it is never forthcoming. If the noble Lord inquired very carefully at
the Admiralty I think he would find that long before the submarine attack became very bad Lord
Jellicoe and other Admirals knew perfectly well that it was coming and warned the Admiralty. I
was then working at the Board of Inventions and Research under Lord Fisher, and I remember that I
never really felt so hopelessly pessimistic or rather badly pessimistic during the war, as when I
was doing that work with the knowledge that the Admiralty were not making proper preparations to
meet that very great danger.
My noble friends Lord Ernle and Lord Lee were both largely concerned in meeting that difficulty.
In his opening speech Lord Lee said he was quite prepared to stand by all that was done then,
although obviously there were a lot of minor mistakes made. For one thing, a lot of land was
ploughed which should not have been ploughed, and there were many failures. But that was bound to
happen in dealing with a vast problem like that, and at very short notice, and with a great
shortage of labour, and a shortage of horses and machines. But still a very great deal was done,
and what I feel is required for the sake of this country, even far more than passing this
Bill—even if it achieves its object of having more land under the plough—is that
advantage should be taken of that experience, and that some
1186
plan should be carefully worked out, to be ready for use if an emergency came, by which the
mistakes which were made in the past, largely because people had not information, and because
there was not time to think things out properly, could be averted. Above all a great deal of
information must have been obtained from this conversion of land from one kind to another, which
was to a large extent an experiment. I think even those who had to carry it out locally on their
farms could improve a good deal on what they did. I know that I myself and others tried, for
instance, to produce more wheat and we made some failures in consequence, and it was probably
worth the risk. But no production that we shall ever get in this country—because we
cannot, I am afraid, produce enough to keep the country independent of foreign
supplies—will ever be of any use if the Admiralty are going to neglect precautions against
submarine attacks, or if the Government of this country is going to think more of politics than
of the safety of the country. For if proper preparations had been made before the war it is quite
possible—it is even probable—that we might have been saved those disastrous five
years.
Now I come to the Reports on which this Bill is based. There was, first, the Report of my noble
friend's Committee, commonly called the Selborne Committee, and there was also the Royal
Commission on Agriculture. Your Lordships are probably quite aware that on the Royal Commission
landowners were not allowed any representation. I myself communicated both with the Secretary for
Scotland and with Lord Ernle, and I was told in both cases (and they very courteously gave the
reasons) that no landlord, as such, was to be on that Commission. Here was a Commission appointed
to deal with these agricultural questions, and the landowners, who had a far larger capital in
agriculture than any one else, were not allowed any place on that Commission. Of course, if you
have a one-sided Commission like that, and a Bill has to be framed on its results, it cannot be
as fair as if it had been properly considered by an impartial or an equally balanced body. It
leads me—and I think it will lead a good many of your Lordships—to think that these
Commissions, and these Agriculture Bills, have a good deal more politics in them and a good deal
less agriculture than their spokesmen are willing to tell us.

1187
There is another point which I think must be considered in the future policy of agriculture and
production I think any of Your Lordships would admit that merely ploughing a large quantity of
land is of no material use; what we want is to get production. How that production is got does
not matter very much, though probably it will be in most eases by ploughing. But what I think has
not been quite sufficiently recognised is that, to make agriculture successful, you must produce
as much as possible for the unit of labour. What we have got to do if agriculture is to go on in
the future—it cannot be subsidised for ever, or even for long—is to produce as much
as possible for the unit of labour. That at the present time governs, and will in the future
govern, the situation. And if by improved methods or different methods we can produce more per
unit of labour more labour can be profitably employed. That is what we have to aim at, and what
the Government and the Board of Agriculture are no doubt aiming at.
A great deal has been said about costing. That undoubtedly has been one of the many weak points
of the farmers in the past; they have not quite known where the cost goes I urn quite certain
that some farmers would often have been far better off without some of their land. Of course that
is rather exceptional, because the ordinary Scotch farmer does not as a rule lose money on
purpose. But I think a good deal could be done in the, way of new methods But is the Board of
Agriculture going to help? If the Board of Agriculture either in England or Scotland, is going to
lay down to the farmers how they are to cultivate their land they should be able to show that
they know how to cultivate it themselves I am not aware whether the Board of Agriculture has any
experimental farms in possession at the present time I rather think it has. If they have such
farms, with free access to balance sheets, and accounts properly kept, and showing that they have
made a success of production, then I think they are qualified to tell the farmer what he should
do. But, until they have done that, I am afraid it will be a case of the blind, or the
semi-blind, leading those who see fairly well.
Often on my own estates where the home farm has not been paying as well as it ought to be, I have
said to the agent "This will never do. How can you speak to any
1188
tenant, saying he is not farming very well, if you are not making the farm pay yourself." I would
give the same advice to His Majesty's Government—and it is not by employing a great number
of officials that you will do it. One estate which I have in Scotland—a very large part of
it is, of course, hill land, and I have sold some now, but it extends to rather over 150,000
acres—was managed, and efficiently managed, by an agent and one man clerk and two women
during the war. I do not think a Government Department would ever reach that level. Of course,
there were necessarily other people, foresters and clerks of works and so forth, and an
efficient, capable staff for all the outside work as well. But one of the great things I think,
if I may say so, in carrying out this Bill if it is going to be a success, is to have as few
officials as possible, but to have them competent, and to interfere as little as possible.
As regards the other point of the cost, I cannot believe that the country will ever agree to
giving a large subsidy to the farmers when the prices conic down. I notice in the House of
Commons that Colonel Courthope estimated that if there was a fall of 20s in prices it would cost
about £30,000,000, and Mr. Lambert I think calculated for the same fall it would cost
£35,000,000. But if my noble friend's policy turns out successful and an enormously larger
area is brought under the plough, instead of this £30,000,000 or £35,000,000 for a
drop of 20s it will probably be somewhere between £50,000,000 and £100,000,000. Now
even a very much smaller sum than that I am positive the country would not stand, and personally
I do not think it is sound. Agriculture must in the future rest on its own legs, and I think, as
far as Free Trade principles go, it would be an infinitely better policy—although I am not
advocating it should he done—first of all to put on a protective duty. I think that is
certainly, even to those who possess Free Trade principles, less objectionable than a
subsidy.
As regards this Bill, to begin with the farmers were very much in favour of it, but I do not
think they are now so much. I think in the beginning it was with the farmers the old case of the
spider and the fly; they were going to walk into the parlour, but they now are fighting shy.
Yesterday I received a letter from the secretary of the Farmers' Union in the county where I
reside, which stated that

1189
the farmers were unanimously against the Bill, and suggested it should be Dropped. He gave
various reasons against it, and one of them was that as far as compensation was concerned that
would all be taken by the lawyers. With regard to Part I, if it can be successful I certainly
wish it every luck, but I am not very hopeful that the result will be what is expected.
With regard to Part II, my noble friend in introducing the Bill said he did not think any good
landlord had anything to fear from this Bill. I feel that the good landlord is the man who has to
fear most from this Bill. In the past landlords and tenants have worked well together, they have
been able to consider schemes together, and there has been a prospect of development, and of
improvements being carried out over a series of years. Now as far as I can see the policy will be
taken out of the landowner's hands, and he will simply be a rent collector with certain work to
do. I trust it will not be so, but I feel that all this interference—that the fixing of
rent by outside parties and doing away with private treaty between landlord and
tenant—will make it a very different thing, and will prevent any one being able to take an
interest in the work and in carrying out improvements in the future as they have been able to do
in the past.
What has never been apparently recognised is this. It has been alluded to before by lay noble
friend Lord Selborne and others. Nothing was said in introducing the Bill as regards the fixed or
landlord's capital in the land. In nearly every measure that comes forward this is not
considered. The only thing that is considered is the tenant's or movable capital. I contend that
agriculture is the same as any other business in that there may be ups-and-down, but to make it
successful there must be confidence. There must be a steady flow of capital to be invested in it.
The tenant's capital and the tenant's exertion alone are absolutely useless; he could do nothing
without the fixed capital of the landlord. I you are going to penalise the landlord in every
conceivable way from a money point of view you will not attract people to put money into it, and
you will not keep the fertility of the country in the state in which it should be kept. What has
happened in the particular case at the present time? We will leave out the question of capricious
turning out. After all you cannot legislate for two or
1190
three exceptions, and there are very few people except lunatics who will turn out a man
capriciously.
What has been the position of the landowner and the tenant during the war? I am on exceedingly
good terms with all my tenants. Many of them are great personal friends of mine as far as being
tenants. During the war the farmers have occupied a somewhat exceptional position. They have been
exempted from service, or probably a smaller proportion have had to serve than any other class.
As regards the landowners, although many of them are old and may not have been able to take an
active part, the proportion who have served is certainly as great as, if not greater than, in any
other community. The farmer's wife has never had the anxiety which other wives have had about
food and matters of that kind, and, over and above that, whilst he has been left at home to carry
on his work the farmer during the whole of this time has been making large and increasing
profits, whereas the landowner has been getting less and less every year. As you well know,
before the war farms were assessed for Income Tax at one-third of their value. They are now
assessed at double their value. The farmer's profit now is supposed to be six times what it was
before the war, and I think I am right in saying—of course I have not the
knowledge—that there have been comparatively few appeals against this Income Tax on double
the rental. I have had a considerable quantity of land in hand, and I have no hesitation in
saying I have had more money out of that than out of anything else in the last few years. I only
wish I had some more. But is it reasonable, is it fair? here one man has been losing all the
time, another man has been making money all the time. Yet when the man who has made the money,
who has had the easier time, goes out of his farm he will get a lot of compensation, but the man
who has been losing money all the time has to pay. Is it right, is it good for the country? I go
beyond that, and I say that any farmer who has been farming for some years in this country, even
if he was turned out capriciously, will have made so much money during that time that it is
perfectly monstrous to give him these large increases in compensation. I am not against giving
any one proper compensation for what he has done, but I cannot see that the present sitting
tenants have any case at all.

1191
What does it come to? Even if they are not farming well it is practically impossible for a
landowner to get rid of them. It may be said that a man is drunk, but it is sometimes difficult
to prove that he is legally drunk. A man may he fanning badly but it is difficult to prove it.
The whole of my policy has been, and also that of many of your Lordships, especially with small
farms, to encourage the small man, the shepherd or ploughman, to take the smaller farm and
gradually get on, and I am glad to say that on my property where there have been a considerable
number of changes through many of the old fatuities dying out, in most of the eases their places
have been taken by those whose fathers were either shepherds or ploughmen.
Just lately I have had to get rid of two tenants who were undesirable and who cultivated their
farms badly. If this Bill had been the law I should have been unable to do it except by paying a
lot of compensation. In one case I have been able to let the farm to a rising man, and in the
other to a man who has been a shepherd on one of the big farms on my estate. The class of man who
I have always found to be the best agriculturist and the best tenant will be shut out from a
career by this measure. That is the great danger in the Bill. We do want progressive farming. The
worst thing that can happen to this country will be that tenants who are not actually bad farmers
but only moderate farmers should be absolutely fixed and the landowner unable to get rid of them
because he cannot afford to pay.
One word about sales. Are not these sales on the whole to the advantage of the country? I have
had to sell a large quantity of land. In Scotland I have sold to my tenants although not in every
case. I have not sold by auction except in one case in England. But are these sales altogether a
disadvantage? In one case I was able to sell land to 200 different people thus creating 200 small
holdings. I do not think that is a disadvantage. I know very well how difficult it is for large
estates to carry on at the present time, but what about the small man? He is compelled to put up
certain things under this Bill. He may not have the money to do it; he has not the money to pay
his tenant if he goes out. The only chance for that man is to sell, and it is most undesirable in
the national interests that any one should hold land unless he has sufficient money to equip it
properly. I am afraid this Bill
1192
will be very detrimental to these properties. I hope not, but that is one of the great dangers of
these proposals.
We are always asked for alternatives. May I suggest this as an alternative to meet all these
cases? It is obvious that farmers have made sufficient money to buy their farms. Any farmer who
has not made money during the last few years ought to be turned out of his farm and never allowed
to farm again. But the bulk of the farmers have probably not enough money to buy their farm and
stock it and be free of debt. That is the difficulty. My proposal would be—voluntary land
purchase. Let the Government create land stock, say at five or six per cent., advance a certain
amount to the tenant with a view to purchase, but let the purchase he voluntary. I would not
recommend that more than 50 per cent. should be advanced in the ease of a large farm or more than
75 per cent. in the case of a small holding. You would then still have a considerable guarantee,
the country would be safe, and you could make the man pay 2 per cent. in order to wipe off the
amount the Government has advanced. I believe such a scheme would meet a great many of the
difficult cases where the tenant has not sufficient capital and where the landowner wants to sell
but has not enough money to meet requirements if he does not sell.
Then there is the question of Government waste and extravagance. If you are going to pile up the
rates you cannot expect agriculture to be prosperous; and every one knows that there is a lot of
waste going on and that we are not getting value for our money. I know that the noble Lord has no
control over that, but if he can cut down expenditure it would help this and every other scheme
which is put forward for the benefit of agriculture. I do not think this is a good Bill. I do not
like it, but the Government are responsible for it, and I therefore cannot see my way to vote
against it. I hope they will accept Amendments and that your Lordships will insist upon
Amendments being made. I am quite sure the noble Lord will realise that there is nothing personal
against him. We quite appreciate the difficult position he is in, and wish him every
success.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter
past nine.]
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, in asking your
Lordships to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire I desire to make it
perfectly clear at the outset, and to do so with great respect, that I dissociate myself entirely
from tiniest every word he has advanced in support of his proposal. May I, in a parenthesis, say
that if your Lordships think fit to give this Bill a Second Reading (which I hope you may not do)
I shall ask the House to cut out Scotland from the operation of the Bill. As this is really a
Second Reading point, and as I shall delay taking action until the Committee stage, perhaps the
noble Lord in charge of the Bill will appreciate why at this moment I inform, him that such is my
intention.
Two stock arguments are usually brought forward when it is attempted to persuade your Lordships
to give a Second Reading to a. Bill of this description. You are told first that you will be
accused of consulting your own interests if you throw out the Bill. Nothing but the accumulated
follies of half a dozen generations and the unbridled enthusiasm of the mortgagors of the
Victorian age could persuade any one in these days to retain land as a security, because you are
extremely fortunate, as your Lordships know to your cost, if you can secure a return of 2½
per cent. free income from land, whereas you may easily get 6 per cent. from Trustee securities.
Then there is the other argument that it we do not take the Bill we shall get something worse. I
very much doubt whether you can buy off the wolves by placating the jackals. If I may put the
notion in topical language, I doubt very much whether you can prevent Lenin from becoming active
by embracing Kerensky. So far is this measure goes, I would rather face up to Lenin than embrace
Kerensky.
Surely it is our duty to consider the Bill from the point of view of whether it does, or does
not, promise well for the agricultural industry in this country as is whole. To deal first with
Part I, which is concerned of course with the principle of State-aided agriculture, the noble
Lord in charge of the Bill told your Lordships quite plainly that he advanced two reasons in its
support. If I understood him aright—and I listened to his speech with great
attention—by far the more important was that by some such measure it is possible to
increase the resistance of the country against the attempts of an enemy to starve us out. I
desire for a
1194
very few moments to examine that proposition, and I venture to say that war experience is hardly
a criterion in measuring the probabilities of the situation. In the first place, nowadays we have
this cry for economy, which is gaining strength and is heard all over the land. Of course it is
unlikely to entourage the payment of funds from the imperial treasury to the farming industry.
Then, again, we have to remember that in the future there will probably be an active Opposition
in another place, prepared to seize every opportunity of discomfiting the Government of the day,
and the Government of the day will have to defend from time to time the payment of these
guaranteed minima to the agricultural industry so far as cereal crops go. As one having
sonic experience of a district where the industrial population is in close touch with the
agricultural industry, I fear that farmers are unjustly unpopular people in these days. It seems
to me that a particular industry when having a bad time has to put up with its misfortunes
without sympathy, but that when it enjoys a. good time then every one is tempted to assail it.
However that may be, I can assure noble Lords that among the industrial electorate farmers are
not a popular class, because it is thought that they have profiteered during the war. I doubt
whether the electorate would support an Administration which proposed to continue these
guarantees in the future.
Then, would these guarantees result in increased production of cereal crops? It seems to me on
the figures put forward by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that there is some doubt whether
that would be the case. I have been provided with figures which I admit are rather more
formidable than those put forward by my noble friend. I believe they were published in the
Journal of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in July, and they go to show that there was
something like three-quarters of a million acres less under wheat in 1920 than in 1918. That is a
rather more serious situation than was described by the noble Lord.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I never mentioned wheat. I was
talking of arable land.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: However that may be, it is
common ground that there has been a considerable reduc-

1195
tion since 1918, and my point is that the guarantees have been operative during all this time. It
seems to me that what was effective during the war was the order to plough and the compensation
paid where it resulted in loss. I cannot help observing, too, that the one crop the acreage of
which has risen since 1919 is that of barley, in regard to which I believe there has been a rise
of 127,000 acres since 1919, which gives the highest acreage under barley since 1904, though
barley prices were never guaranteed. However, I do not desire to place more reliance upon these
figures than they are worth.
As regards this question of increased production of cereals, from the point of view of national
defence I know that the noble Lord opposite is fortified by the reports of various committees of
the Admiralty, but it is only fair to recollect that those reports have been made on the question
put to the Admiralty, "Would it be an easement to you from the naval and military point of view
if crops were produced in this country?" It is not for the Admiralty to measure the advantage
from the naval point of view against the disadvantage (if such disadvantage exists) from the
purely agricultural point of view. I submit that it is your Lordships' responsibility to measure
these contending factors, if contending they be. The hypothesis upon which the noble Lord builds
his whole case in the matter of national defence is extremely speculative. We have to ask
ourselves first, Will there be a war? and second, When will there be a war? We have to ask
ourselves, Will conditions in the next war be comparable with conditions in the late war? Without
being a Jules Verne it is reasonable to remind the House that aeroplanes are an improving factor
in warfare, and that in the next war we may be far mere alarmed at the prospect of having our
crops burned by infernal machines dropped from aeroplanes than, in twenty years' time, we may be
of having our grain ships sunk by submarines. It may be the experience of the noble Lord
opposite, or some one who will be holding his present Office, to move about the country ordering
gas masks to be put on to the cows in the next war.
Against this extremely speculative case what have we to set? We have the obvious and indisputable
disadvantages of introducing State aid into agriculture. I
1196
confess that I view with alarm the prospect of having these guarantees paid only for a
season—for four years or whatever the period may be. It is only right to remember that
what Parliament has done Parliament may undo, and that at the end of this period which has been
fixed the whole situation may be reviewed. This measure may be reversed at any moment by a short
Act of Parliament passed through both Houses. I view with alarm the prospect of an industry,
which has had State aid for a season and has had its self-respect and its power of
self-preservation sapped by a subsidy, being then left by a merciless electorate to live or
starve as best it may.
Again, there is the point of view of agriculturists engaged in hill farming and in farming very
light land, who will not after all get the advantages of this Bill, but who, on the other hand,
will probably have to pay more for cereals which they must buy. They object most strongly to what
they regard as partial treatment under this Bill. So far as my own knowledge goes, farmers are
not in the least unanimous in support of this measure. I observe that the Scottish Chamber of
Agriculture decided to recommend the rejection of the Bill by 41 to 18. Furthermore at a large
meeting in the Corn Exchange at Kelso towards the end of last week, 103 farmers farming 78,478
acres decided to ask your Lordships to reject this measure. I have a list of one or two other
small agricultural organisations in Scotland which have also passed resolutions against the Bill,
and I am not without hope that there may be efforts during the coming week to reinforce the
arguments against it.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I do not want to interrupt the noble
Marquess, but I do not know whether he has received the telegram which has just reached me from
the National Farmers' Union of Scotland unanimously supporting the Bill and calling upon the
Government to pass it.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Opinions differ, of course. I
have not the advantages of the noble Lord, but I cannot think why the National Farmers' Union of
Scotland have not thought fit to send me a copy of that telegram. I have not got it
yet.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: I have no doubt the noble Marquess
will get it.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: As regards Part II of the
Bill it appears to me that compensation for disturbance can only be well founded on the ground
that a sensible number of tenant farmers are at this moment suffering under the fear of receiving
notice to quit. I dislike talking of things that I do not understand, and I may say at once that
my experience is purely Scottish in this matter, and no doubt my views are coloured by that fact.
As far as Scotland goes, I can only say if you bring the question down to that issue you will
have very great difficulty in getting any one farmer to say that he is in the least anxious as to
the continuity of his tenure.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: In the gracious Speech from
the Throne His Majesty's Government made out that they were appalled at the number of estates
which were being sold. If ever there was a case of the cause being horrified and alarmed at the
effect, this is one, and this Bill makes it more probable than ever that unfortunate landlords
will be forced to sell. After all, disturbance in the sense in which the word is used in this
Bill is nothing more terrible than a landlord taking advantage of a break in the lease. I have
now some years of experience of estate management in Scotland during which time I have
endeavoured to understand the point of view of my tenant farmers as well as my own, and in my
experience it is honestly the ease that breaks are sought for by tenant farmers far more keenly
than they are by landlords. It appears to me that latitude and not rigidity of contract is in the
best interests of the agricultural industry as a whole.
I do not desire to go into the question of the obvious tendency, for economic reasons, of the
payment of the sum paid as compensation for disturbance passing from the landlord to the incoming
tenant. That is an experience which we have had in other Bills. If in the open market a tenant
farmer comes forward in the present circumstances and offers a particular rent for a farm,
knowing that under this Bill at the end of a period of years be is likely to be in the enjoyment
of what I might call a fine from the landlord, if competition is active he is prepared to give
the original rent plus the annual value of what he thinks his fine is going to be at the end of
his
1198
tenure. The clogging effect of this measure on the industry is already obvious. I have a letter
from a tenant farmer who desires to remain anonymous but whose letter is at the disposal of the
noble Lord opposite should be desire to see it. Briefly, the story is as follows. A man bought a
farm because he could not find a farm which he could take on lease. He borrowed money from his
bank to buy the farm. The sitting tenant had, I think, two or three years to go on his lease, and
he had agreed to leave at once. This Bill appeared on the scene, and what happened? At once the
sitting tenant said, "No, I am not going; I am going to wait until this Bill passes into law and
get the advantage of it, and get compensation from you who have bought this farm with a view of
coming into it yourself." Now this unhappy farmer is left in the position that he cannot get into
his farm, and has to pay interest to the bank on the money he has borrowed. Needless to say, he
is not in favour of the noble Lord's Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that tenants value the
good relations between their landlords and themselves, and they realise that this plan will tend
to drive a wedge between them. To put it quite plainly, a proposal to transfer anything from
one-twentieth to one-fifth of the present freehold value from the landlord to the farmer is bound
to create differences of opinion and uncertainty.
The noble Lord in his Second Reading speech gave your Lordships a picture of great activity. He
said—
"I have endeavoured to build a golden bridge between the two interests concerned, and in doing so have tried to steer a straight course between the Scylla of dual ownership and the Charybdis of nationalisation."
It seems a little like the advertisements of the Disposals Board, but if the noble Lord suggested
these two as alternatives nothing of the sort is the case. Again, if security of tenure is
carried to its logical conclusion and becomes fixity of tenure it is, in fact, dual ownership and
nothing else.
We are entitled, too, to examine the parentage of this Bill. It is common knowledge that. Part II
of the Bill was the result of a meeting between the Prime Minister and the National Farmers'
Union. At first (so rumour said) the promise of fixity of tenure was put forward, and ultimately
this was deflated in favour of security of tenure, and that, I believe, is

1199
the genesis of Part II of this Bill. Your Lordships are perfectly entitled to remember the
history of the right hon. gentlemen's antecedents in land legislation. You are entitled to
remember that the legislative experiments of the Budget of 1909–1910, upon winch the Prime
Minister rose to fame, have now joined some other experiments on the Parliamentary rubbish heap.
And now that the right hon. gentleman has rejected the silly, as I think, economic theories of
Henry George for the less demonstrative and more orthodox view of the duller exponents of the
science of political economy, your Lordships are entitled to recollect how it was that Part II
came into being. When I listened to the noble Lord in making his Second Reading speech on this
Bill I was reminded of a picture that all your Lordships must have seen. It is a cold evening,
and outside a village inn there stands a pony forgotten, bearing on his back the result of his
master's bargain for the day. His master is within, and the lights of the inn of my vision were
those of the Constitutional Club.
In truth, the country is weary of wartime legislation, and not prepared to accept at their face
value either Bills or reputations made in war time. I say with all earnestness that you might as
well attempt to resuscitate the agricultural interest on the thin and jejune substance of this
Bill as to preach a good sermon on last night's whisky. It is not only a stale stimulus, it is
the wrong stimulus. At the very moment when the noble Lord was advancing his theory of State
control in agriculture his colleague, Sir Robert Home, was attacking that principle root and
branch in Liverpool. I believe your Lordships and the country as a whole are determined to cut
out this principle of State control of industry wherever you find it. You have it in this Bill,
vulnerable, and to be struck at Strike at it without mercy.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the course of the debate has been
concerned mainly with the first part of this Bill, and in particular with Clause 4. I make no
apology for dealing further with this matter because it is a clause which I think has a very
far-reaching effect on agriculture as a whole, and I want to draw it to the attention of tile
noble Marquess who moved the rejection of this Bill. He suggested, I think actually
stated—and in doing so did
1200
scant justice to your Lordships, because he said there was no one here to voice the interests of
the farming tenant or of the labourer—that we should be actuated in our decision by the
selfish interests of the landlord himself. That we know quite well is not the case, and the fact
that we here pay so much greater attention to the first part of this Bill, which deals with
agriculture generally, than to those other clauses which deal with the relation between the
landlord and the tenant, is, I think, a fair contradiction of what the noble Marquess has
suggested.
This measure is brought forward, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has very distinctly
stated, keeping in view the Defence of the Realm and the provision for the State in cases of
emergency. But I would like to suggest to him what I am certain he will agree with, that in order
to increase production and get a better class of farming in tins country it is essential that you
should gain the confidence of the farming community. You will not gain the confidence of that
community by putting before them the possibility or the probability of their system and method of
farming being changed at any moment, and that they may be forced to depart from that system to
which they are accustomed, of which they have full knowledge, and in which their capital is
invested, in order to comply with the order of any Minister who for the moment may be at the head
of the Ministry of Agriculture and may conceivably have a passion for ploughing up pasture land
and may ask them to alter their whole system of husbandry. The confidence of these people must be
obtained if we are to get the essential work out of this clause.
It is quite clear from the speech of the noble Lord that Clause 4 was to be read in the light of
a possible emergency arising when a vastly increased production would be required; but it is not
clear to my mind that to bring about a change in the system of farming now and to convert a
quantity of grass land into arable would have any effect upon the actual production at the moment
an emergency may arise. When the noble Lord, as Director of Food Production, was responsible for
carrying out that policy, which he did with very great effect, he was able to call to his aid a
large amount of valuable pasture land in this country, land which had been under grass for
generations, and

1201
he found in those lands a storehouse of fertility. There was an accumulation of plant food in
those lands which was really the agricultural capital of the nation. He was able by a turn of the
plough to set this free, and out of it to produce great crops with which he was able to feed the
people of the country. Capital was employed for the temporary advantage of the country but
certainly for the future loss, because somehow or other that capital has to be replaced.
I want the noble Lord to imagine the position of his successor who may be faced with a like
emergency. He will not have this pasture land to fall back upon. He will have to deal only with
land a large portion of which has been worked out and worn out, and partially exhausted by
continual cropping. He can only get out of that land a sufficiency of corn to meet his emergency
by a very liberal manuring. But the very emergency which prevents corn cooling into the country
is going to prevent the import of manures as well (most of them are imported) and, if a course of
cropping when we are able to feed our selves from abroad is to be adopted, I do not think there
will be in the possession of the country a fertility which will produce the amount of food
required in a state of emergency.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, feared, and I think prophesied, in a state of affairs which he
could see coming, that practically the whole of the arable land might be turned back into
pasturage. I do not share his views in any way. It would be a misfortune if that was the case.
The best wheat land of this country will always be cultivated. It is true that much of the poorer
land must go out of wheat cultivation because no possible minimum price that you can afford to
give will ever persuade the fanner to keep that poor land going. Yet the corn land, which for
that reason probably will be reduced, will always be the best land available for the purpose of
wheat growing. It is no doubt exceedingly important for us to keep land under arable cultivation
in order to reduce the quantity we bring in from abroad, but which is necessary for fiscal and
financial reasons. But that can, I think, be obtained without resource to the extreme methods
which are proposed in the Bill, without the Minister taking power to compel land to be broken up
and frightening farmers with the idea
1202
that at any moment those orders may be given.
Under this Bill he takes power for a partial form of control to which nobody will raise any
objection, and that is, the power to use for his purpose the rules of good husbandry in order to
compel farmers to make the best use of the land now broken up. If those rules were complete and
could be exerted in full force I have little doubt that we should find that the increase of food
from the acres now under cultivation would be sufficient not to meet the whole country's
requirements but to supply the quantity of corn we are in the habit of producing here. I do not
want to expose my ignorance too much, but I would like to ask what really are these rules of good
husbandry at the present moment? We knew what they meant some time ago. But when the noble
Marquess opposite, in a fit of reforming zeal, began to speak somewhat disrespectfully of the
rules of good husbandry and the rotation of crops, one recalled that the year 1908 practically
did away with the rules to the extent that farmers were allowed to mis-crop or cross-crop in any
way. That really struck at the root of what we believed to be the rules of good husbandry at that
time.
Now they are somewhat meaningless, and I should like the noble Lord to consider whether it would
not be wise to stiffen in the interpretation clause the meaning of these rules. At the present
moment I think all we know about them is that the rules of good husbandry are interpreted, or
amplified, or qualified by the custom of the country, but in many cases there is no custom of the
country. In the South West of England and a great part of Wales no custom of the country exists.
Consequently, there are scarcely any rules which will form a guidance. There is a definition of
these rules in Clause 30 of the Bill, but that does not carry us any further than we are at
present. If you cling to that definition and go no further, I think you are really stereotyping a
system and a method of husbandry in this country which is often very low indeed and which, in the
interests of food production and of every farmer, ought to be considerably raised. I attach
considerable importance, for the purpose of this clause and of another clause to which we are
coming shortly, to a better definition of what we require the ordinary farmer to do in his
working of the land.
For one moment I want to go to Part II of the Bill, which is not so directly con-

1203
cerned with the important matter of the Defence of the Realm and provision in case of emergency,
but has more direct reference to the relationship between the landowner and the tenant. It is a
matter of common knowledge, I think, that the object of the National Farmers' Union, in asking
for this measure was to stop all disturbance of a tenant and as far as possible to stop sales,
and in support they suggested very extreme measures, which certainly led straight to fixity of
tenure and dual ownership and all their accompanying evils. I should like to offer my
acknowledgment to the noble Lord for the really firm manner in which he dealt with those
suggestions. I think he fought an excellent fight, not in the interests of owners but in the
interests of agriculture generally, when be declined to have anything whatever to do with
measures of that kind. Throughout the negotiations which have gone on, as we know, in regard to
this measure, I know that he has endeavoured and to some extent successfully to hold the balance
fairly between the different conflicting influences.
I would claim, as I think all your Lordships would claim, that in offering compensation instead
of fixity of tenure the noble Lord has offered something which will in no sense affect the notice
to quit being given, or disturbance in any way, but which may perhaps be regarded as some quid
pro quo by farmers themselves. As a matter of principle I am confident that to offer a money
compensation for doing something which he has contracted to do is wrong. I think, as a matter of
principle, that if a man makes a bargain he should be compelled to carry it out without any offer
of compensation from anybody else, but I am unable to adhere closely to principles of that kind
because I do think that the very foundation upon which that principle rests has been changed of
recent years. I am quite certain that the sales of estates, necessarily to so great a degree
within recent years, have fundamentally affected the whole position of land tenure in this
country. At a period some years ago, corresponding roughly with the introduction of estate
duties, land tenure in England while nominally a tenancy from year to year was in effect an
actual fixity of tenure. By custom and practice it was practically fixed, and the tenant so long
as he performed the contract of his lease, which was very roughly interpreted, remained the
tenant on the same terms. But
1204
now the thing is really changed. Probably thousands of tenants within the last few months, or at
all events the last two years, have had to choose between buying their farms or going, and many
others are beginning to understand that their time may come—that with the increase of
Imperial taxation, perhaps with an increase of tithe, which is certainly coming within the next
five years, and the increased cost of maintenance, they will be affected in the same way as their
neighbours have been.
This I believe is amounting to a state of uncertainty which is bad for agriculture, and if it is
bad for agriculture I think it is undoubtedly a fit subject for legislation. But the compensation
which is proposed under this Bill is really a very serious one. One year's rent may not sound a
great deal but it is four or five years' net income, and while I have acknowledge the hardship
which it may be, and is, to the tenant farmer to be turned out of his holding and his business,
and possibly having to start life afresh, I am not at all certain that the noble Lord has really
fully considered that the fact that a tenant is turned out usually or very frequently means that
the owner is turned out also—that there is a hardship to the owner at the same time as
there is a hardship to the tenant farmer. An owner, as a rule, does not want to sell. There is in
this country a great love for land. It possibly is unexplainable, but it exists, and an owner
inheriting land which has been in his family for generations regards it as part of his duty to
pass it on to his successor. It is not from any wish to sell that he sells, but because of
circumstances over which he has no control, and the noble Lord adds to that hardship this very
serious money penalty.
The main reasons why I object to the form of compensation as laid down in the measure is, first
of all, that it seems to me to be one which is unduly severe, and also because very frequently it
will have to be paid to men who really have done nothing to deserve it. It is a wholesale
compensation in many ways quite illogical, because it is not based upon any actual loss which the
tenant has suffered. I think that it ought to be made quite clear that unless the tenant farmer
has done something better than farm perhaps only just sufficiently to escape the censure of his
agricultural committee he should not be paid compensation by the owner. I hope that may be
effected by the stiffening of

1205
the rules of good husbandry which I have suggested. There are many other eases in which I think
the position of the compensation will have to be considered, but more particularly we should put
it into a more logical form, laying it down that an actual loss to the tenant must be proved
before he is entitled to any compensation. I intend to vote for the Second Reading of this
measure, but I shall feel myself quite free to deal with it in its subsequent stages unless we
can get from the noble Lord such concessions as may be necessary, mainly in regard to Part I of
the Bill, to make it clear that the confidence of the farming community may be restored, and that
a man may be allowed individually to work out his salvation for himself, having full regard to
the duty of making the best use of his land in the service of the
country.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT
MILNER): My Lords, the noble Marquess who moved the rejection of
this Bill made a very direct challenge to me to which I should like very briefly to reply. He
quoted some words of mine in the debate on the introduction of the existing Act three years ago.
I have not had time to refer to what said, but I have no doubt the noble Marquess quoted me quite
correctly. I fail entirely to see, however, what ground of complaint the noble Marquess has in
what I said then, or in what I am doing now.
What I said was that the measure I was then advocating was an emergency measure, that it was due
to war causes, and that for that reason it seemed to me that Free Traders, however strongly they
held the doctrines of Free Trade, might without infringing their principles vote for it. Well, it
is a temporary measure. The Bill which was passed then was passed for five years, and now we are
coming forward with another proposal which it is in the power of your Lordships to accept or
reject. How is the noble Marquess prejudiced by having voted for the previous measure in dealing
with the present one? Why, he is proposing to reject the present one, and he is quite free. If
anything I said then had in any way committed the noble Marquess to supporting more than that
measure he might have complained of unfair treatment. Nothing of the kind. He is as free, as
unpledged to oppose this measure as I am free on my part to support it. At the same time
1206
I am glad to take this opportunity of acknowledging—I think I did at the time, and I once
more do so—with pleasure the fact that the noble Marquess and his friends, who hold the
strictest doctrines of Free Trade with deep conviction, made a great and patriotic sacrifice when
they supported the existing Bill three years ago. I acknowledge it and I absolutely absolve them
from any obligation to continue in that road now that the war is over. I think that those of us
who do not share those particular economic doctrines are free now, as we have always been, to
support a measure based on a different principle.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear,
hear.
VISCOUNT MILNER: The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, appealed
to the Government to promise that they would accept certain Amendments of the Bill in Committee
and, as far as I can understand, the noble Lord's support of the Bill depends more or less on the
assurances which we may give at this stage. I could quite understand that if the noble Lord was
asking for those assurances from a Government which commanded a majority. It would be very
reasonable for him to say, "If I help you now will you undertake to do so and so hereafter?" But
what is the good of asking this Government in this House to promise anything in Committee? The
House is perfectly free to pass the Bill to-night and to turn it inside out in Committee. In
fact, that is a course which I think the House as a whole rather enjoys taking with Government
Bills. Therefore I hope we shall not be deprived of the noble Lord's vote on the Second Reading
if the Government is unable to give him any assurances. I am afraid I am not able to give them,
neither can I give him the promise that anything will be done in Committee inasmuch as the
Government, unfortunately as I think, is entirely unable to implement the promise, not having a
majority or anything that looks like one.
As far as I can judge, what is going to happen is that noble Lords will on the whole think well
of and give this bill a Second Reading, and that afterwards it will be subjected to very close
examination, I Will not say severe handling, in Committee. As far as I am concerned, though I
should be sorry to see the foundations, the main

1207
principles of this Bill seriously affected—about that I shall say a word directly—I
think we are prepared—it is necessary that we should be prepared—to take a very
conciliatory line when we come to the question of details. Quite apart from the wisdom of such a
course, and the necessary prudence which in the circumstances we are bound to exercise, I for my
own part have a very open mind about a good many of the details of this measure.
I have listened with close attention to the speeches, and on a subject of this kind I always find
the speeches delivered in this House are very interesting and very instructive. Even from those
critics of the Bill who I think have gone too far and made some rather unjustifiable
statements—I sometimes listened to noble Lords and thought they really could not have read
the Bill—even from the strongest critics I have heard something to-night which was, I
think, instructive, and which may be useful in making the measure a better one than it is.
But in the few remarks which I shall make to-night I am not going to dwell particularly on those
criticisms of details to which I have referred, and to which the noble Lord behind me will no
doubt in winding up the debate, more particularly reply. I rather want to say a few words with
regard to the general policy of the Bill, which I do not think is really adequately understood.
If noble Lords will forgive me for saying this—and I am speaking on a subject which I have
studied to the best of my ability for many years—I though I think the criticisms of detail
which we have heard to-night front practical and experienced men have been very valuable, what I
have missed in the debate as a whole, is a recognition of the gravity of the problem with which
we are confronted. I do not mean to say that in a general way noble Lords do not feel the
importance of increasing agricultural production. I suppose we all feel the need of increasing
the output of any one of our great national industries. But, throughout, the tone of the
discussion has appeared to me to imply that this is a question of more or less advantage. "Of
course," it seemed to be said, "if we can improve our agriculture, so much the better; but, after
all, we are an industrial nation and we must make the best of it. It is very difficult if we have
to put ourselves out, very much, if we have to spend a great deal of money
1208
on maintaining agricultural production at its highest. Well, there are pros and cons, and perhaps
it may be worth while, and perhaps it may not." In dealing with most economic questions I should
think that a reasonable attitude of mind. I cannot feel that it is the right attitude in a matter
where the life of the nation is concerned. This is not an ordinary economic question which can be
measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds: it is the existence of this country as a
great country which is at the back of the effort to promote the highest agricultural development
of which we are capable.
I will only put two points about it. On one of them, the question of defence, I am not going to
dwell very strongly, though I may have a word to say in conclusion about that, also. There is
another consideration which I should like to put forward, and which makes many of the arguments
which we have heard—the argument, for instance, of the expense that may be involved in
giving this guarantee—appear small, petty, and altogether negligible, compared with what
is at stake in giving that guarantee. I believe all history will show—I do not believe
that there is an instance to the contrary—that no nation can really maintain its
greatness, or even its security, if a certain proportion of its industry is not agricultural, if
a certain proportion of its population is not agricultural. I believe we are very near getting to
a point where our agricultural industry will be entirely secondary, awl our agricultural
population reduced to most dangerously low proportions. I need not dwell upon the social
consequences of that, the effect upon the physique or upon the character of the people. There is
nothing in the world so steadying as a strong agricultural population. I look with real alarm at
the possibility of the agricultural people in this country, the people living on the land and by
the land, being reduced to a perfectly inconsiderable and negligible minority.
There is another consideration I want to put before you, my Lords. I am arguing the supreme
importance of getting the maximum production out of the land. This country is a great industrial
country, and I quite understand that people in the main look to our trained commerce, our
Manufactures, and so on, to maintain our wealth and prosperity. That is good.

1209
Bat what does that involve? It involves in an ever-increasing degree dependence upon foreign and
distant countries for the raw materials on which our industry depends. We have always been
dependent in that way, but to that dependence upon foreign countries for the raw materials of our
industry, which runs into hundreds of millions every year, which have somehow or other to be paid
for, we have now added dependence for the greater portion of our food supply, and we are for the
first time heavy debtors to at least one foreign country.
In these circumstances the question whether we shall be able to continue to pay for all that we
are bound to import is becoming to my mind the great economic question of the future. What is
absolutely fatal in my view is to increase the adverse balance which threatens us with economic
destruction by importing anything that we can by reasonable effort produce in this country
ourselves. When I say reasonable mean by the greatest possible effort in a case where the life of
a nation depends upon it. When I hear that it is a risky and a very serious thing that we may
have to pay £10,000,000 or even £20,000,000, or even more a year—though I do
not believe we shall—as a guarantee in order to keep up the productiveness of our soil, I
wonder if people consider how many millions more we shall have to pay if the balance of trade is
permanently against us, and if you have to add 25, 30, 40, or 50 per cent. to the value of
everything which you have to import into this country, for instance, from the United States of
America. That may exceed many times the cost of your guarantee, even if it were an expensive
guarantee.
You may say, "That is all very well, but what reason have you for thinking that the agricultural
productiveness of this country will be increased by these measures?" This is a Bill which aims
above all at keeping land under the plough. What happened in the past when you allowed foreign
competition to ruin British agriculture to such an extent that a large amount of land passed out
of arable cultivation into grass land? At the time of the greatest prosperity British agriculture
has ever known, in the early seventies (I am speaking of England and Wales but it would be
equally true of Scotland) you had between 15,000,000 and 16,000,000
1210
of acres under arable and about 11,000,000 in permanent pasture. Then came the years of severe
American competition. Arable cultivation ceased to pay and millions of acres, as a matter of fact
about four million in this country, passed out of arable cultivation into grass land; and most of
it not good grass land at all. The beautiful grass land of England, which no man in his senses
would ever dream of ploughing up, had existed before, but most of this additional grass land was
poor grass and merely an illustration of the impoverishment of the agricultural industry.
I remember years ago, at the time when agricultural depression had reached its lowest point,
being called upon to give evidence before the Commission of which Lord Chaplin was Chairman. I
was at that time in the Inland Revenue and I had to go, with my experts, carefully into the
position of agriculture. We valued as best we could the land of England at that time, not in the
landlords' or in the farmers' interest. We valued the land as you would value a thing which you
were going to sell, and came to the conclusion that it had depreciated by a thousand millions in
consequence of the agricultural depression. If you had sold England at the time I gave evidence
you would have got a thousand millions less for the whole land of the country than you would have
got some twenty years before. About 4,000,000 acres had passed away from the plough and dropped
down to grass. No man in his senses is hostile to grass land where nature has fitted it for that
particular form of cultivation. It is some of the best land in England, but nothing could be more
deplorable, more wasteful, more ruinous, than where you have to allow thousands and millions of
acres of land not particularly suitable to grass, but which are suitable for arable cultivation,
to drop to grass simply because you cannot afford the cost of maintaining them. The one thing
which is indisputable, which statistics prove clearly, is that taking the average of land its
productivity as arable is enormously greater than its productivity under grass. I sometimes
wonder to myself whether we should have had to deplore that enormous depreciation in the value of
British land if, in those days when British agriculture was going down and down, instead of
treating it as a mere commercial question, we had spent even a million or two a year, not to
mention ten millions a year, in trying to counteract the fatal and depreciating

1211
effect of foreign competition on English agriculture at that time.
I pray that we are not going to go through that melancholy experience again, and I hope that your
Lordships, whatever opinion you may have of the details of this measure, will most carefully
consider the supreme importance of the object which we have in view, and give us your help in
making the Bill one which will reassure the British farmer at a time when he is once more alarmed
and nervous of the prospects before him in the coming years, when he is once more inclined to
play for safety. In my opinion nothing could be more disastrous than that the British cultivator
should be tempted to play for safety at the present time. The whole difficulty of this
agricultural question is that the interests of the individual so constantly conflict with those
of the community. The thing which is good business to the farmer is so often bad business for the
State. It may constantly be good business for the farmer, and a right thing for him to do, to
save money and to make a small profit by low cultivation at low cost. It may pay him much better
than to try to get the most out of his land, running up at the same time enormous labour, but it
can never pay the community to have land in a low state of cultivation when it might be in a
higher state of cultivation. It can never pay Great Britain that its land should yield 50 per
cent. or 30 per cent. of what it could yield, and therefore you have to devise some means to give
the farmer some encouragement, which will lead him to adopt that method of cultivation which may
not be most advantageous to him as a private individual, but which, in its results, is most
advantageous to the community. That is the difficulty of the whole problem which you have to
face. You may be asking the farming community to take a line which is not to the direct interests
of the individuals concerned, but which, from a broader point of view, is in the economic
interest of the country, and of course not only in its economic interest, although I do attach
very great importance to that.
I commend to you once more the all-important question of protecting your trade balance by
producing in this country everything you can produce, and not adding to the enormous weight of
what you in any case must buy; but I also commend to you most strongly and earnestly the point
1212
on which Lord Selborne has dwelt, about the defence of the country. I have had somewhat bitter
experience of this. I remember five years ago when I was appointed Chairman of a Committee which
for the first time inquired into the steps that ought to be taken to promote the productiveness
of the British Isles in view of the emergencies of war. That Committee was very evenly balanced,
I think we were half of us Free Traders and half of us Tariff Reformers, but ultimately we all
came to the conclusion that at whatever cost it was essential to produce more corn in this
country. Then to my surprise, when the recommendations went forward to the Cabinet, the
Admiralty, I think it was, found out that we had exaggerated the danger, and nothing happened. A
year was lost. Two years later a measure which we had advocated in 1915 had hastily to be passed
as a matter of life and death. I wonder how many millions were lost because we did not adopt that
plan in 1915, how many shiploads of costly food had to be imported from America, not to mention
the shiploads which went down, but which we had to pay for.
I believe it is an absolute fallacy to suppose that because after all we got out of that
difficulty, because we escaped that danger, we can afford to run the risk of letting the great
proportion of our land drop out of arable cultivation, in the conviction that at a given moment
we can always fall back upon it. I think the noble Marquess rather exaggerated the effect, great
as it was, of our effort in 1917–18. You cannot suddenly jump up from producing a quarter
of the food you want to producing three-quarters in a year. We did very well, but we did not do
that and it cannot be done. Least of all could it be done if we allowed to continue the process,
which was going on so rapidly at one time and has now I am sorry to say recommenced, of putting
land down to grass. It is all very well, but when the emergency comes where will be your
population, your skilled men, your instruments? No, my Lords, there is a limit to the risks we
can run in this respect, and I implore your Lordships, however closely you may look at the
details of this Bill, never to lose sight for a moment of the supreme national object which
underlies it.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I do not propose to detain
your Lordships by discussing the details of this Bill

1213
although I frankly admit there are many of them with which I cannot agree and which I would
gladly criticise. My chief objection to the Bill is against the principles which its proposes to
establish. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill told us that the Government had no intention of
applying war methods to peace farming. I would ask him, "On what else are the principles of this
Bill founded?" It is founded in the first instance on the Corn Production Act of 1917, which was
itself a war measure, and it perpetuates that Act which would in other circumstances lapse in due
course. Further, the very essence of this Bill is the Agriculture Act of 1919. This Bill proposes
to set that Act on a permanent statutory basis and also to give much wider powers to the
agricultural committees which were set up under that Act. I hope the noble Lord will not think
that I speak in any spirit of hostility to those agricultural committees when I say that I cannot
view them in peace time from the same aspect as that from which one viewed them in war time.
During the war unity of control was as essential at home as it was abroad. Many of your Lordships
served on the war agricultural committees and I think that probably I should be voicing the
general opinion if I say that many of you gave effect to recommendations and instructions of the
Board of Agriculture, as it was at that time, with which you were not wholly in agreement. We
gave effect to them because we felt that it was not the time for criticism, that we had to trust
our leaders whoever they might be, and that we must trust the Department which had charge of our
food production. We further felt that the measures which they thought necessary at that time were
fully justified by the stress of the emergency in which we found ourselves. Now, my Lords, we are
free to express our views and are at liberty to say what we really feel on these subjects.
I would further suggest—without any possible reflection on the constitution of the
agricultural committees—that during the war many farmers were prepared to give their time
to serving on those committees as a form of war service, but I very much question whether in
normal times as normal times gradually return we shall not find that farmers are less and less
inclined to serve on these committees. They will wish to devote more time to looking after their
own farms, and they will be less ready to
1214
interfere with the doings of their neighbours. The idea that agriculture in each county should be
controlled by the greatest experts in that county is very nice in theory, but I am not sure that
it will work out in practice. I am inclined to think that some gentlemen—I do not for a
imminent refer to the noble Lord—who serve in Government Departments are apt to overlook
the fact that it takes much longer to travel from one end to the other of an agricultural county
than it takes to walk from Whitehall to the Strand, and that it is not only an hour or two but a
whole day which has to be devoted to sitting on these committees. That fact cannot be overlooked
if a man has to do justice to his own holding. I fear very much that if farmers are to be left on
those agricultural committees they will find themselves more and more under the control of
busybodies and bureaucrats. We shall all agree that we shall have to do everything we can to
promote good husbandry. We are anxious to see that the bad farmer does his duty to his country
and we are anxious to do everything to increase the food production. But I think we are justified
in asking ourselves whether it is really necessary to confer such very wide powers on any
Minister to attain this object.
The noble Lord who introduced the Bill said that it was not a farmers' charter. I most cordially
agree with him that it is not a farmers' charter. If it is a charter at all, it is a bureaucrat's
charter. I note that the Minister seeks powers under this Bill to terminate tenancies, over-ride
contracts, and to insert in existing contracts any such terms as he thinks fit. Further, he can
create charges on estates and do ninny other things which strike at the very foundation of the
business institutions of this country if the principle is once admitted. It can be extended
indefinitely and whatever else we may do, surely we ought to try to preserve the sanctity of
contracts inviolate.
We shall no doubt be told that it is very improbable that these extreme powers will be exercised.
We shall be told that it will be only in exceptional cases that the Minister will resort to such
powers. As I said before, I prefer to deal with principles rather than with probabilities. When
we consider the reasons which time noble Lord urged as showing the necessity for introducing this
Bill, we shall probably agree with his premises. But, again, the

1215
question arises. Is it really necessary to introduce a Bill of this sort in order to attain those
objects? I would go further and ask, Are we quite sure that the Bill will not in effect defeat
its own ends?
The noble Lord urged that we should study before everything else the safety of this country, and
that we should ensure security to good tenants. My Lords, I most cordially agree with him, but I
would ask him one question. As regards the safety of the country he based his contention rather
largely on instances which he quoted that since 1918 there had been a reduction of arable land in
this country of 450,000 acres. I wonder whether he could tell us how much of that 450,000 acres
was land which had been laid down again to grass because it was found to be unsuitable for arable
cultivation. The noble Lord said in his speech last week and I am sure we agree, that he had no
desire to maintain as arable land which was unsuitable to such purposes.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: I do not think the question I ask him
is really such a difficult one to answer. I daresay there are records at the Ministry which would
show how much had been already paid to occupiers of land in payment for losses they had sustained
through breaking up their grass land under compulsory Orders.
Going a step further, can the noble Lord also tell me how much has actually been paid to enable
occupiers of land to find grass seeds with which to reseed land which they then broke up. The
point I wish to make is that if the Ministry actually provide grass seeds for re-seeding land
which no doubt it was quite wise to break up at the time, but which was not suitable for
permanent arable cultivation, it is hardly logical to argue that the whole of those 450,000 acres
have been laid down to grass again contrary to the national interest. I do not expect the noble
Lord to answer the question right away, possibly he may be able to tell us at some future date,
but I should be very much surprised if a very large proportion of that 450,000 acres cannot be
accounted for on the ground which I have suggested.
I should like to say one word also with regard to the cost of this Bill, if it passes.
1216
The noble Lord said he believed that there would only be three new officials called into being
owing to this Bill, but I think he omitted to remind your Lordships that this Bill also would
render permanent the Corn Production Act and the Agriculture Act, and that a very large number of
temporary officials who were called into being under those Acts would now be placed on the
permanent staff, and I hardly think that the cost to the country, should that be so, would be
entirely negligible. With regard to security, for which the farmer so rightly yearns, I am sure
that we should all agree that, where a man invests his capital and his labour in any enterprise,
he is fully justified in asking for some assurance that he shall see the fruits of his labour. I
should be the very last person to dispute such a proposition. But I cannot help asking myself
whether the Bill does not take away with one hand what it gives with the other. How can there be
any real sense of security when a farmer is perpetually threatened with state interference? We
shall all of us, I think, agree that no man has ever done his best under compulsion, and surely
it is possible to devise some means for giving that security without placing industry under the
heel of the Ministry. The position really comes to this, that a Minister in future, instead of
being a benevolent friend, as we have considered him to be in the past, will assume the
role almost of a slave driver, continually looking out for delinquents.
But I do not wish to look at it from the point of view of any individual interest. Take the
owner. No owner will in future know what obligations he may be called upon to fulfil in the way
of carrying out improvements. It may be all right for the large landowner, but surely it will
become very hard on the comparatively poor man who happens to own a certain amount of land. He
really will be in a worse position than a shareholder in an unlimited liability company. And then
the farmer. The farmer will never know how long he will be able to pursue in future the methods
to which he has been accustomed—methods which may be perfectly reasonable. No doubt the
noble Lord will say that the Minister will not in such cases endorse the views of the local
committees. The fact will still remain that the local committees, under the powers delegated to
them, will be able to indulge in vexatious interference, and to

1217
go on any man's land at their will. There cannot be anything but an atmosphere of insecurity so
long as such powers obtain.
Frankly I regard this Bill as a very dangerous encroachment on the liberties of which we are so
justly proud, and so rightly tenacious. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that our lack
of faith in the Minister is in any sense personal. He has assured us, and we fully believe him,
that as long as he retains his present office he will exercise every possible moderation. But
once we pass a measure of this sort we may be pretty sure that the provisions are not likely to
be modified, and other Ministers hereafter may not exercise that same gentle moderation. It is my
honest belief that the guil less farmer has been ensnared by the crafty bureaucrat into accepting
conditions the ultimate effect of which no man can possibly foresee.
Whether we consider the interests of the country or the interests of the individual I must admit
that the Bill, to my mind, has very little to recommend it. I cannot believe that any measure of
State control is of benefit to the nation, and I am convinced that the advantages to the majority
of the farmers are illusory rather than real. No doubt some injustices may be remedied, but I
wish this could be done without, placing the industry in a permanent state of servitude. I myself
have sufficient confidence in the farmer and in the man who lives on the land to believe that he
can be induced to do his duty to the nation without any such extreme measures of coercion. We
have often read and heard that it is not the old type of landlord that the farmer fears, not the
type of landowner who helped the occupier of agricultural land through all his difficulties
through the latter part of the last century. It is the new type of landowner who has not learned
his responsibilities. We are very glad to hear that, but it seems to me that this Bill is going
to aggravate rather than to minimise those difficulties owing to the sense of insecurity which it
will effect. It will drive the old type of landowner to put his land on the market, and it will
bring about that very change against which the farmer is the first to admit that he wishes for
protection.
Having said this, I will only add that I have come to the conclusion that I cannot vote against
the Second Reading of this measure, for this reason. I should be very
1218
sorry if it were felt that your Lordships were in any way reluctant to give the fullest possible
consideration to any measure which might conceivably be for the benefit of the community, or
might possibly give the farmer that justice which we all wish him to have; but at the same time I
hope that the Government will accept Amendments which may make this Bill tolerable, though I very
much doubt whether it will be beneficial; and I certainly, if the question arose, would rather
reconsider my vote on the Third Reading than see the Bill passed in its present
form.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I will try as briefly as I can to
state my main objections to this Bill. My first objection is on the grounds of economy. Last week
we had a very important speech from the Prime Minister at the Hotel Cecil in which he stated that
it was necessary to have private and public economy of the most ruthless kind. If he holds those
views, I am rather surprised at his allowing a Bill of this kind to be introduced. For this Bill
sets up three Commissioners in connection with the guarantees, who will naturally be paid
salaries, and if the guarantees become effective a large staff will be required to go through all
the claims, for I do not imagine for one moment that the Treasury would allow payment to be made
for those guarantees unless they had been very carefully checked. And there would be staffs to be
set up by the agricultural committees in every county of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
Presumably those staffs will be supplied with motor cars at the public expense, and I believe
that nearly every farm during the year will have to be visited by the agricultural committees in
order to go into the question of ploughing up land, repairs, improvements and good husbandry.
What the eventual cost of those staffs will be I would not like to predict, nor do I think
anybody really knows exactly what the guarantees may cost us in the future.
I have read speeches delivered in another place, and the views held there are very greatly
divergent. One Member I notice says they might possibly cost the country £10,000,000,
another one estimates £35,000,000, and another £50,000,000 a year. But whatever the
amount is, and I believe it may be very large, I want to know where the money is coming from to
pay

1219
for those guarantees. It seems to me rather curious that we have had no expression of opinion
from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the possible payment of these guarantees. I believe
they will become effective and in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a
difficulty in framing his Budget. To my mind subsidies are bad in principle; and guarantees are
nothing less than subsidies. We have had an experience of a railway subsidy and a coal subsidy,
neither of which were encouraging examples. We have at this moment a bread subsidy. Every one
hopes that it will soon conic off, but if it does only to be replaced by the cost of these
guarantees the country will not gain very much. It is extremely easy to give an IOU but much more
difficult to redeem it.
I come now to the question of control. The Prime Minister in his speech last week was equally
emphatic on this point and held that the control of industry by the Government was extremely bad.
A farmer may be under orders from the agricultural committee to plough up land. He may suffer
grievous loss by so doing. The land may refuse to grow the crop, and under the Bill he will get
no compensation as he used to under D.O.R.A. An outside body can order land to be ploughed up
without any risk to themselves—the farmer has to find the capital and suffer the loss. A
landlord will not know from day to day or week to week what he may be called upon by the
committee to spend on repairs and improvements. In fact he may be called upon to spend more than
the whole of his rent roll. That is, I think, quite likely in these days of the high cost of
materials.
I notice that the Bill extends to Ireland. Why does it extend to Ireland? How does Lord Lee of
Fareham think he is going to control the Irish farmers when the whole Government cannot control
Ireland. There is a clause in the Bill which says that the tenant is to keep in repair and
maintain the farm road. Why has that been put in? If the road is good enough for the farmer to
cross with his carts why is it to be kept in good repair? Is it with the idea that the
agricultural committee may use it for their motor cars Lord Ernle said that the Bill would reduce
the value of land. Whenever an owner gets back into his possession a farm on account of a tenant
leaving I am sure he will at once take the farm in hand and will not let it
1220
again. If he is a wise man he will sell it at once with vacant possession. In these days there
are many purchasers who want to buy land with the idea of farming it themselves, but in the
future we shall lose that class of purchaser as persons will not buy knowing the large amount of
compensation they must pay if they give notice to the tenant to quit. Our successors will have to
pay very heavy Death Duties, and if they have a difficulty in selling land I do not know how they
are going to pay them. Will the Government take in payment of Death Duties the land itself? If
they will, then they are offering a very short and convenient cut to those who are in favour of
land nationalisation without compensation. I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the
Bill two questions, because in reading the Bill I am not clear upon them. One is this—If a
tenant refuses to pay his rent and receives notice to quit would he then receive any compensation
when he left?
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: Compensation for
disturbance?
LORD DYNEVOR: Yes. I do not think that is alluded to in
the Bill, but no doubt the noble Lord will look into the point. The other question is—If a
landowner has to pay the outgoing tenant compensation—it does not affect my argument
whether it is for one year or four years—will he be allowed to reclaim the amount from
Income Tax as to repayment? He will have received a year's rent from the tenant and then he has
to give a year's rent back—if it is a year's rent—to the tenant for disturbance. In
the 1909–1910 Budget we were given a concession by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by
which the landowner could reclaim beyond the statutory one-sixth or one-eighth on land and
buildings for repayment of laconic, Tax. If compensation is paid to an outgoing tenant I do not
think the owner ought to pay Income Tax on the amount. With these few words I wish to express the
view that the Bill contains a great many most objectionable features.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, at this late hour I will not
detain your Lordships more than a few minutes. The whole foundation of the Bill, as I understand
it, is the question of the national interest, and it has been based on two grounds. One is in
regard to our food supply in time

1221
of war, and the other is the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, that we should produce
every atom of raw material that we can in order not to have to pay further money to foreign
countries and so depreciate the exchanges.
Let me deal briefly with these two points. We are all accustomed to regard the last war as an
example of future wars, but the first question we have to ask ourselves is, With what country are
we likely to be at war? The last thing I am going to do is to pose as an authority on naval
strategy, but, as I understand it, even with the long-distance submarine that we should have been
likely to meet if the war had continued a little longer, the whole essence of submarine policy
consists of bases close to our shores. Unless His Majesty's Government are going to
suggest—which is the view I personally hold—that there is a danger of hostile
submarine bases on the West coast of Ireland if you carry Home Rule, I do not see where you are
going to get those hostile submarine bases, except on the coast of Europe nearest at hand. You
have Spain in the first place, which is unlikely to wage war, and in the second place you have
France whose interests are identical with ours, and I think every noble Lord will agree with Lord
Derby in saying that an Alliance is necessary and most probable between the two countries. In the
third place you have Germany. If we carry out the terms of the Treaty with Germany, I cannot see
that for many years we have much to fear in regard to sub-marine attack from that country.
Therefore, you really rule out nations close at hand which may attack us by submarines, and a
large part of the argument for the Bill falls to the ground.
On the second point as to the economical question, all of us will agree that it is of vital
importance that we should reduce our indebtedness to foreign countries and not increase it, but
if the cost of producing cereals in this country is really heavy, and as many of us think
bureaucracy is even more expensive than paying the foreigner for wheat, we may find the economic
position even worse under this Bill than it would be without it. The whole foundation of the Bill
rests on the composition of the Agricultural Committees. Under Clause 4 the Minister, after
consultation with Agricultural Committee, is empowered to do all sorts of thinks in regard to
enforcing proper agricultural cultivation. I think every member of
1222
this House will agree, including the Minister of Agriculture, that at any rate some of the
agricultural committees are not composed entirely of individuals well versed in agricultural, and
if that is the case the whole of the enforcement of good agriculture rests upon an
extraordinarily shaky foundation. Unless the members of the agricultural committees really know
what they are about they will only interfere with farmers to the detriment of agriculture in
every particular.
I know that the National Farmers' Union think the effect of this Bill will be to give greater
security, and on receiving a circular from them a short time ago I wrote and said I had had
considerable opportunity of talking to landowners in various parts of the country, and that the
unanimous opinion of landowners agreed with that of Lord Dynevor, that as farms fell vacant the
owners would take them over and farm them themselves or else sell them; in other words, the
effect of the interference in the Management of estates must sooner or later be to lead to the
abolition of tenancies. Anyone who considers the question and gets business advice will, I think,
agree that to take on a new tenant of whom you know nothing and give him rights of claiming
compensation which may run into as much as twenty years' income from the particular
farm—years' gross rental being nearly twenty years' income—will have cause for very
grave hesitation. Either the owner will farm the land himself, or he will sell it. I am one of
those who believe very strongly in the increase of peasant proprietors and those who farm their
own Land, but I also believe there is room for both tenant farmers and those who believe very
strongly in the increase of peasant proprietors and those who farm their own land, but I also
believe there is room for both tenant farmers and those who farm their own Land. The effect of
this Bill, although it does interfere with sales and depreciates the price of agricultural Land,
will be to reduce the number of tenant farmers until they almost disappear.
There is one point which I should like to put to the noble Lord, and that is the question of one
year's rent. Most of us, I think, would be in favour of paying the tenant, on his leaving the
farm, everything that he can claim as real loss due entirely to his being given notice, but no
claim is put forward to cover this question of the fine of one year's rent on the landlord. Lord
Selborne quoted the hard case of the farmer's widow who lets a farm while the son is being
educated and before he is old enough to take up the farming of his own

1223
land. That, case was put to the Prime Minister in another place, and he replied that it certainly
was a hard ease, but that it was impossible to make laws to meet hard cases; and, after all, the
reason for leaving the farm did not affect the case—when a tenant left he suffered loss.
If that is the case I do not understand why, when notice to quit is considered inconsistent with
good management, the compensation should be up to four years' rent instead of one year's rent. I
cannot understand the landlord being filled four years' rent, and I understand less why that four
years' rent should be paid to the tenant. I think that part of that amount might go towards the
expenses of the Agricultural Committees. But if the reason for leaving the farm is not considered
as having anything whatever to do with compensation in regard to hard cases such as the one
quoted to the Prime Minister, I do not see why in a hard case, where four years' rent is payable,
that rent should be payable to the tenant.
I am inclined to think that if the country becomes liable to pay a very heavy guarantee to
farmers the country will be very much opposed to the Bill. The Bill, however, contains one
principle which I regard as of very great value. For the first time, so far as I know, the State
recognises its duty to agriculture, and accepts the, principle that a prosperous agricultural
community is vital to the nation. It seems to me that the subsidy which may become payable to
farmers may be set off against the farmers' dislike of control, and we may be able to get a
benefit to agriculture based on different lines. I have often asked those interested in
agriculture, "Why is it that a farmer in this country up to the period of the war was only just
able to make both ends meet, and was barely able to struggle along, while that same individual,
when in many cases he emigrated to Canada and took up land there in a very short time was able to
grow wheat at such a price that he could send it thousands of miles by rail and sea and undersell
the home producer in this country?" What is the answer to that question? I have put it to many
agriculturists and have never got an answer that carried conviction to my mind. Some say that the
farmer in Canada works harder than he does here. That is not true. The same individual worked
hard here. The small farmer works very hard here. Then I am told that the virgin soil
1224
of Canada produces wheat more cheaply titan it can be produced here, where the soil has to be
manured. It must be remembered on the other hand that the production per acre in Canada is very
small. It. seldom collies to more than about 20 bushels per acre; whereas in this country it
comes to a great deal more than that—at least 24 bushels, and usually considerably more. I
submit that the actual manuring of land in this country is more than set off by the increased
production which ensues. Is it a question of rent? Most of us know that the rent in this country
barely pays more than 4 or 5 per cent. on the buildings and fences which have been erected and
that the actual profit on agricultural land is often a minus quantity. When a farmer goes to
Canada he finds he has to pay more for the fences and buildings he has to put up than in this
country, and therefore it is not rent.
The burden which is placed on the land by rates is the next question. It is a burden which
becomes greater every day. Rates are steadily going up; they are 14 s. and 16 s. in
the £ now. If the farmer is put on an equality with the farmer overseas he will not only
hold his own but will beat him. He will not want a subsidy, and it will not be necessary to keep
prices up artificially in his favour; he will be able to hold his own without any assistance from
the State. I do not like a subsidy and I do not think the nation as a whole likes a subsidy. I
think the farming community as a whole—of which I am a humble member—does not like
control. Therefore, I think both the State and the farmer will eventually make a compact by which
we shall ultimately get a reduction in the rates on agricultural land. That, I believe, is the
real policy which will enable the farmer to go ahead in this country. It is quite obvious that
you can so regulate your rates that they will be lower for land under plough than for land under
grass.
There is only one further point. It is curious that although extreme Radicals are strongly
opposed to all taxes on raw materials, they have never been able to understand that taxes on land
are taxes on the raw material of agriculture and the most direct tax on the people's food.
Therefore, the more you can reduce either rates or taxes on agricultural land the cheaper food
will be grown in this country. Once that is realised I believe people will be prepared to reduce
rates and taxes on agricultural land, and so enable the farmer

1225
to be placed on an equality with the farmer in Canada and elsewhere, with the result that agriculture in this country will prosper.
There are several other points in this Bill to which reference might be made, but I will only mention one—the question of compensation for improvements. I submit that this is a point which should be more closely defined than in the Bill. There are specialised forms of agriculture, such as the growing of sugar beet and hops. Supposing a farmer takes some land and thinks he would like to have what is called a "gamble in hops." He goes to the agricultural committee and tells them that he requires a hop oast in order to dry his hops. The agricultural committee agrees that an oast-house is necessary for the purpose. The landowner is then compelled to put one up, which is a very expensive thing to do. After one or two years at attempts to grow hops the tenant finds that his land is unsuitable because it will not produce hops of the best quality, which alone will pay; so he gives up hop-growing, grubs them up and has no further use for the oast. The landowner who provided that oast finds that his land is not one penny more valuable as a result of all his expenditure. That would be unfair to the landowner, and most of the burdens on him would be of no advantage either to the State or to agriculture.
Although I dislike much of the Bill, the principle that the State for the first tune recognizes agriculture as a vital industry to my mind outweighs many of the objections, and consequently if the Bill can be amended in Committee, as I believe it can, in the various directions which have been suggested, it may still be of some advantage to agriculture. Therefore I am prepared to vote for the Second Reading, although it will depend on what happens in the further stages whether I shall be able to support the Bill through its stages to the Third Reading.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, debate adjourned until to-morrow.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.