Sitting of 2 August 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The Loan CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
WAR PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TERRITORIAL ARMY AND MILITIA BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order):
Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
Report of Amendments to be received to morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE had given Notice to move, "That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting as respects the Motion standing in the name of the Marquess of Crewe, and that that Motion have precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I understand that His Majesty's Government agree to take my Motion, which is lower on the Paper, as the first Order. I am greatly obliged and, I hope, therefore, that the House will take that course. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE then rose to move to resolve, "That His Majesty's Government, having declared their intention of passing into law certain measures of great public importance which can only be adequately examined through prolonged discussion, this House declines to proceed until the end of October with any Bills not yet read a first time, and directs that the further proceedings on any Bill read a first time after the passing of this Resolution shall be postponed until Tuesday the 1st of November next. Provided that this Resolution shall not apply to the Railways Bill, or to the further proceedings on any Bill entered on by general consent."
The noble Marquess said: Lords, I hope that I need not detain you at any great length in asking you to consider the Motion which I have placed on the Paper regarding Bills which have not yet been read a first time in your Lordships' House. This question has been the subject of informal discussion on two occasions—on the 21st and on the 27th of last month—and on those two days the arguments on both sides were fully set out, and I am anxious not to repeat, beyond what is absolutely necessary, anything that I said on those occasions. I hope, therefore, that I need not occupy a great deal of your Lordships' time. The Resolution is that this House should not proceed, before the end of October, with any of the Bills that have not yet been read a first time, and consequently directs that further proceedings on them should be postponed until the beginning of November. I will endeavour, as briefly as I can, to explain why I make this Motion.
In the first place, I conceive it to be for the general convenience of all parties concerned. On a former occasion, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House good-naturedly twitted me with what he called my feelings of altruism in mentioning the various persons whose convenience, as I believe, would be thus served. And I confess that I am not in the least ashamed of regarding the convenience of all persons, whether their positions be exalted or humble, who are compelled against their will to remain in or near London so long as Parliament sits. There are some who are fortunate enough to look forward to the prospect of going to Scotland. There are others who would gladly seek some rest at the seaside. But what I think is more important is that there are many, both in

91
and out of Parliament, to whom it is a matter of real distress not to be able to share in the vacations or holidays which their sons or daughters get from schools or universities.
One has also to consider, of course, what the effect is upon His Majesty's Ministers, whose hard case was fully set out by the noble Marquess. He spoke on the last occasion when we were discussing this of the almost delirious delight with which he looked forward to a period of rest from Parliament during the months of September, October and November. But I note, on the other hand, that on July 21 he drew a somewhat different picture. He spoke of the forthcoming meetings of the Supreme Council, and of the terrible burden (those were his words) which they involved upon those who, like himself, have to take part. Those meetings of the Supreme Council are to be followed by what he described as prolonged conferences, some of them taking place in Europe, and others, possibly, in America; and in addition to this, the noble Marquess and some of his colleagues have to set time apart for what (again using his words) is the "full examination" of the small matter of reconstituting your Lordships' House as a reformed Second Chamber.
After studying that picture, I feel, indeed, that our well-meant efforts to relieve the burden on the noble Marquess and his colleagues to some extent by the Motion I am moving are not likely in any case to be very fruitful. But I would like to say this regarding the noble Marquess himself. We have all noticed, and noticed with a sense of personal deprivation, that it has not been possible for him, owing to his multifarious and weighty duties, to attend the debates in this House with anything like the regularity which it has been the privilege of the Leader of the House ever since I have belonged to it to exhibit during the whole session of Parliament. That has been most completely understood, and the consideration which has been shown to the noble Marquess has been most fully acknowledged by himself on more than one occasion. I am sure that I may assure him on behalf of the House that should be find it difficult during the remainder of this session, or the course of the next session, to remain glued to the front bench opposite we shall extend to him the same appreciation of his difficulties as we always have extended in the past.
These matters of relief of individuals, whoever they may be, of course cannot be compared in importance with the call of public necessities in the course of business. I think His Majesty's Government will admit that in this matter we have not displayed a factious spirit. We have understood that the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill, which is of deep interest to many of your Lordships, is to undergo a full process of reviewing before the House rises, and we have also understood, after a close examination of all the circumstances, which was undertaken by some noble Lords, to whom I am very grateful, that the Railways Bill is also of such urgency that it is desirable to deal with it before the House rises. I would ask your Lordships for one moment to look to another place and to the course of business there, because we shall all agree that we ought not to take any step which would add materially to the labours of the members of the House of Commons, either now or later in the year.
The Leader of that House stated that there were a number of Bills with which the Government would only be able to proceed if they received something like general consent, because they would have to be taken at a late hour of the evening. Those included no less than six Bills which have already passed your Lordships' House. They included Bills which are regarded with much concern by some of your Lordships. They included the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, and the Government of Burma Bill, and I would say, in passing, that I should regard it as a distinct misfortune if that measure had to be passed by Proclamation and not by the sanction of Parliament. They included also the Education (Consolidation) Bill; and that enormous volume which offers such a tribute to the labours of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack and to other noble Lords—namely, the Law of Property Bill. In that list was also embraced the Territorial Army and Militia Bill which has just reached your Lordships and which, I cannot help thinking, is likely to be, or at any rate ought to be, the subject of some close examination here. There was also the Licensing (No. 2) Bill which, I conceive, is likely to occupy a considerable portion of your Lordships' time.
In addition to those there is the War Pensions Bill, a measure which received not a little notice in another place. If I remember aright it took a whole day of the

93
time of that House for the Second Reading; it underwent a long examination in Standing Committee, and took another day, during which several Division, were taken, when reported and for the Third Reading. There is also the Water Undertakings (Modification of Charges) Bill, a measure which involves some changes and the conferment upon a public body of certain powers which in the past would have been regarded as exceedingly startling, and which now at any rate ought to be closely examined by your Lordships' House. Then there is what, of course, is a larger measure which we should expect to receive later—the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. The noble Marquess spoke of that as being a harmless and innocent measure and one which he thought in time would be regarded with general acquiescence. On the other hand, it is impossible not to note that those who are even more qualified than the noble Marquess himself to speak on behalf of the Tariff Reform movement regard that measure as marking an epoch, in that, after seventy years, it involves a new departure in our fiscal system. I say nothing of it beyond that it is obviously certain to receive here a detailed examination, and I have no doubt that there will be some noble Lords who will desire to offer strong opposition to it.
That is the programme which the noble Marquess and the Leader in another place have sketched out to us for our employment before the House can rise. The noble Marquess also indicated the manner in which we should presumably consider these various measures. If I may quote the noble Marquess's words they showed that he looked forward to an easy passage for all these Bills. He observed that we were living in climatic conditions which render a conciliatory spirit obligatory on all of us. That is exceedingly pleasant, but, in plain English, it is an invitation to the House, I will not say to neglect its duties of examination and revision but to take them as lightly as possible. Nobody need engage, certainly nobody in this House need engage, in public affairs. There are many other occupations quite as attractive, and many of them no doubt not less useful, but those who do engage in them are obliged to take their work rather more seriously than the noble Marquess invited us to do. Without adopting the attitude of a prig on such a question, any noble Lord who follows public affairs closely may feel that he is not merely entitled, but that it is his duty,
94
to give close and careful attention to the measures sent to us from another place. And if that attention is now to be given to the various measures which I have mentioned, it means that after a session of six months, which have been certainly extremely laborious in another place and not altogether to the contrary here, we shall have to drag on for as many weeks as may be required for the discussion of these measures, and the members in another place will have to wait until we have done our business.
I really do not know whether. His Majesty's Government regard as extravagant our claim to examine these measures closely. I remember that the Government of Afghanistan, in its communications with the Government of India, used to describe itself, and for all I know still does, as the God-granted Government of the Amir. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government lay any claim to such a lofty origin or sanction, but I cannot help thinking that they are under sonic misapprehension as to the manner in which their measures ought to be received. His Majesty's Government no doubt believe that as a Coalition they combine all the best elements of the two old Parties without possessing any of the defects of either, and that therefore they are in a position to run measures through Parliament with a haste, and with an absence of discussion, to which mere Party Governments in the past have not ventured to lay claim. I can only say that if they do entertain that opinion it is not justified either by the form in which their measures reach your Lordships' House, or by their durability after they have been trimmed into shape by discussion here. I need not remind your Lordships of what has happened about Housing, and what is going to happen, I suppose, about Corn Production, in order to lay emphasis on what I have just said.
I venture to think that if there were a prospect of the House sitting on till the end of this month, or till some time in September, and then rising until the end of January, or until February next, even then it would be the wrong course to take, and that the right course would be to adjourn as soon as possible, and to meet for a period in the autumn. I should say so, even if there were a prospect of a long vacation. But we have to consider what the admissions of the Leaders both in another place and here have been on this matter. It has been agreed that it is more than likely that the question

95
of Ireland will cause Parliament to be summoned some time in November—"late in November" was the phrase used in another place—and I think that anybody who considers the possibilities closely will see that it is approaching folly to talk of a meeting in December, if both Houses will have to consider, as we hope they may have to consider, a new Trish Bill.
In both Houses the Leaders spoke with a sort of Olympian certitude of this late meeting at the end of the year. How can they possibly tell? One thing we can always say about Irish affairs is that the unexpected is what happens, and it is altogether impossible, I am certain, for anybody now, even those who are deepest in the negotiations, to fix a date on which Parliament can be called together to reconsider the question of the Government of Ireland. I venture to lay stress on the fact that it is of the first importance that the session should be kept alive during the whole of the autumn, so that it may be easy and simple to summon Parliament at short notice. I say nothing now about the possibility of financial reconsideration, although that is an argument which I know was pressed in another place. On the Irish matter alone I am convinced that there should be nothing more than an adjournment.
I put it to your Lordships, that at the very worst, several weeks are gained, if my Motion is adopted, at a favourable time of the year, and they are exchanged for an equivalent number of weeks at a less attractive season; at a time, too, when, as was stated on the last occasion, it is very likely both Houses may be simultaneously occupied with different business. That is to say, your Lordships by concluding the business which we have so far carried on this session, and in another place by the consideration of Irish measures. I invite you to take the "bird in the hand"instead of a bird in a very obscure hush, and I also think it is in every way a plumper and superior bird to that which the noble Marquess is prepared to offer.
In conclusion—it is only a minor matter but it is worth mentioning—if the programme of the Government is carried out it means a new departure, in the sense of starting a session of Parliament in November, instead of after Christmas. That is to say, that the various ceremonies, the State opening of Parliament by the Sovereign, the banquets which are given
96
by the noble Marquess and others, and, speaking generally, the commencement of the winter season in London, will be put forward to the autumn, instead of being deferred until the spring. That has often been suggested as a good way of beginning the session, but it is a large modification to make without any consultation with many who are as much concerned in it as His Majesty's Ministers themselves. But that, as I have said, is a minor point. On the major question, I submit that I have proved that the great balance of advantage to everybody, from His Majesty's Ministers downward, rests with the proposal I have indicated on the Paper, and which I therefore beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That His Majesty's Government, having declared their intention of passing into law certain measures of great public importance which can only be adequately examined through prolonged discussion, this House declines to proceed until the end of October with any Bills not yet read a first time, and directs that the further proceedings on any Bill read a first time after the passing of this Resolution shall be postponed until Tuesday, the 1st of November next. Provided that this Resolution shall not apply to the Railways Bill, or to the further proceedings on any Bill entered on by general consent.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the noble Marquess has observed that this is the third occasion in the last fortnight on which this subject has been discussed in your Lordships' House. Like him, I will refrain from repeating the arguments or observations which I made on the two previous occasions, although I note, in passing, that the noble Marquess did not refrain from a certain amount of good-humoured comment on the perhaps rather lighthearted observations in which I ventured to indulge on one of those occasions.
To another remark of the noble Marquess I will allude in a sentence only, inasmuch as it has to some extent a personal aspect. The noble Marquess alluded to the fact that, for reasons which are well known to your Lordships, I have not been able in recent months to devote that amount of attention to my duties here which I should like to do, and which my predecessors, I believe

97
almost without exception, have done. The noble Marquess made that allusion in no tones of reproach, but rather of sympathy, and I only refer to it in order once again to offer my apologies to your Lordships' House as well as my sincere gratitude for the consideration you never fail to extend to me in that context. But when the noble Marquess went on to suggest that in an autumn session I might, to use his metaphor, find myself glued to this bench, I can assure him that I should regard that as an alleviation in my daily toil, because it is the unfortunate fact that I am detained elsewhere by a much more adhesive substance than is ever applied to me in your Lordships' House.
The Motion of the noble Marquess is a very unusual one; indeed, I believe it is without precedent that such a Motion should be made by a noble Lord occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition in this House. We have been accustomed, from time to time, to Motions being made from these benches in favour of autumn sessions, as a general principle. Lord Newton has, during the last twenty years, been active more than once in that direction, and we are not unused to Motions being made to reject particular Bills on the ground, in the opinion of the mover, that your Lordships' House has not had sufficient time to consider them. But, so far as I know, there is no previous case in which the Leader of the Opposition has been kind enough to assume charge of the business of the House and invite your Lordships to declare that you will not assist the Government in carrying out the business of Parliament and the country, except at such time and in such manner as you may think fit.
The noble Marquess indulged in a certain amount of chaff at our expense. With the recollection of the India Office upon him, he alluded to the well-known phrase in which the Afghan Government is in the habit of describing itself as a "God-granted Government." If we felt disposed to make such a claim on behalf of ourselves we should be rudely disillusioned by reading the morning papers, but I am not sure that the noble Marquess is not venturing to make the claim of a "God-granted Opposition" in your Lordships' House. No doubt the noble Marquess made his proposal, unprecedented as I am arguing it to be, in the gentlest possible manner. Not for the first time, I feel inclined to
98
say that he is the mildest-mannered man that ever scuttled a ship, but at the same time nothing can alter the fact. that the proposal he makes is a startling innovation, and I respectfully suggest to him that the day may even arise when, seated once more on this bench, he may discover that he has initiated a very inconvenient precedent in the proceedings of your Lordships' House.
There is one noble Lord, I am sorry to say no longer amongst us to guide us with his eloquence and his counsel, who would greatly rejoice at the course advocated by the noble Marquess to-day. I allude to Lord Rosebery. So far back as the year 1903, in a debate initiated by Lord Newton on a proposal to rise at the end of July and to have an autumn session—the counterpart of the Motion which the noble Marquess has just made—Lord Rosebery used these words:—
"I should like to see a strike of the House of Lords. I should like to see the House of Lords take its courage boldly in its right hand, and adjourn at the time it thought fit; and that it should come back in two or three months' time and discuss more at leisure the Bills sent up to it."
In the course of the debate on that Motion, Lord Morley, while expressing sympathy with Lord Rosebery's views, added:—
"I am not quite sure that that heroic measure will be taken; in fact, I think I shall live a good many years without seeing your Lordships take that step."
Both of these noble Lords are happily still living, though we are not fortunate enough to see them often in this House; but the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has lived long enough to see the belated conversion of his eminent son-in-law, while Lord Morley has lived long enough to see his prophecy put to the test by a Division to-night. But the remarkable thing about the occasion to which I have referred was not so much the speech of Lord Rosebery, or the speech of Lord Morley, as the fact that Lord Crewe voted against the Motion.
The noble Marquess based his case this afternoon in the main on a regard for the decent conduct of public business, and, as he put it, the convenience of all sections of your Lordships' House. I would ask you to believe that when he suggested to me that the members of the Government might regard the claim to discuss this or that Bill, and more particularly the Bills that he mentioned, with close and meticulous care, as an extreme claim, he

99
said something from which I wholly dissent. I have never, in any remarks that I have made in your Lordships' House, expressed any other feeling than that those who are responsible for business here should give you every conceivable opportunity for the close, minute, searching investigation of all the measures that come before you, and nobody can reproach me, in such control as I have over the business of the House, with ever having endeavoured to deprive you of that opportunity, or to scamp discussion.
But there are certain features inseparable from the conduct of business by any Second Chamber in the world. A Second Chamber is, by reason of its constitution and its functions, a revising and an amending Chamber. That means that, except in cases where legislation is initiated in your Lordships' House—and, pray believe me, I have always endeavoured myself to multiply those occasions—the business of the Second Chamber must necessarily be conducted after the First Chamber has done its work; in other words, in the concluding part of the session. The occasion does, therefore, arise—this is not the first time, or the tenth time, or the twentieth—the occasion inevitably arises when towards the end of the session, a mass of legislation, which your Lordships are entitled, if you like, to call congested, is placed before you, with the desire, sometimes with the petition, that you will be able, before you separate for the holidays, to take it in hand.
Nobody knows better than the noble Marquess that this is no new thing. As we sit on different sides of the House, we are in the habit of making the speeches which have been made by the other in the same position. I recall, when I had a seat there, many occasions on which the noble Marquess argued with great force that discussion by your Lordships' House in the month of August could be satisfactorily pursued, and that your duty could be fully discharged, without a too prolonged examination of the Bills that were placed before you. I have myself heard him argue that such discussion, in the peace of August, was a very desirable and easy undertaking. I have heard him plead that, in the interests of the Government and of the carrying on of the work of the country, it was desirable that the completion of the work of the session should be achieved, and that the pledges given by
100
the Government of the day should be carried out.
If we come to the manner in which these undertakings have been accomplished by other Governments, I recall the year 1909—I think it was the first year in which I had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House—and I find that in that year your Lordships' House, without any serious protest on the part of the then Leaders of the Opposition, who were anxious to facilitate the work of the Government, sat all through August, September, and October, passing measures of such importance as the Housing and Town Planning Bill and the Irish Land Bill, and that, having discharged this great load of business, they then met again in November in order to take the famous Finance Bill of that year. I find, again, that in the year 1911 the House remained in session in August, and that, in spite of the length of the session, which had been very much prolonged, the Old Age Pensions Bill, surely a measure of capital importance, was read a first time on August 8, and a third time on August 17; the Telephone Transfer Bill, not an unimportant measure, was read a first time on August 17, and passed in the course of the next two days; and after these labours, protracted as I have said through the latter part of August, the House met again on October 25. In the programme, therefore, that we are putting before you, and in the claim, I admit a serious claim, that we are making upon your consideration, we are doing no new thing; we are doing nothing that has not been done on a larger scale by the noble Marquess himself.
But, after all, these questions ought not to be argued, and I should certainly not claim that they should be decided, by precedent alone. Let me put to you this practical question—Are the interests of your Lordships' House and are the interests of the legislation which is going to be put before you likely to be gravely prejudiced, or indeed prejudiced at all, by the carrying out of the bill of fare which His Majesty's Government submit? The noble Marquess says in his Motion that there are certain measures of great public importance which can only be adequately examined through prolonged discussion. Are there any of these measures to which this discussion is going to be denied? Let me take the principal measures that still remain to be examined. There is the Railways Bill. The noble Marquess con-

101
ceded that that Bill is one—I think he used the words—of urgent importance, and he did not attempt to establish the plea that there will not be full time to deal with that measure in the period before us. Then there is the Licensing Bill. I have been told that there are good hopes of that Bill being treated in both Houses of Parliament as relatively an agreed Bill. I believe that everybody wants it to pass into law, and I do not anticipate, from such means of information as I have, that when it conies to your Lordships' House there need be any very prolonged debate upon it. There is also the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill, a Bill which is on the verge of reaching your Lordships' House, to which I believe you are going to be asked to devote the whole of this week, and for which, as far as I have been informed, there is ample time for full discussion, and, if you so desire it, for amendment.
Then we come lastly to a Bill which was very little mentioned by the noble Marquess, but which I could not help thinking all the while occupied a rather prominent place in the background of his imagination. When the noble Marquess was arguing so forcibly about the convenience of your Lordships' House and the conduct of business here, I could not help saying to myself the familiar words—
"I could not love thee, dear, so much, Loved I not honour more "—
only I should have inverted the proposition, because all the while the noble Lord was protesting his love for the dignity of your Lordships' proceedings, I could not help thinking that he had really the Safeguarding of Industries Bill in his mind, and was masking his dislike of that particular measure. His Majesty's Government are pledged by more than one declaration made by important Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, to pass that measure into law in the present session of Parliament, but I can quite understand some noble Lords may say:"We are indeed anxious to facilitate your proposals, but what is the particular urgency of this Bill being passed in the month of August? Why should we not adopt the plan of the noble Marquess—namely, have an adjournment now, meet again in the month of November, and take this Bill when it has passed the House of Commons as the first Order of the Day, and then proceed to pass it into law."
102
As this Bill is really very prominently in the background of this discussion, I should like to answer that question and to show your Lordships why it is a matter of extreme urgency and importance that this Bill should be taken and passed, if your Lordships approve, without further delay. Your Lordships are familiar with the fact that the Bill consists of three parts. The first part is devoted to what is known as the protection of key industries, the particular industries being in the main the manufacture of optical glasses, scientific instruments, and fine chemicals for use in laboratories. It is admitted, I think, without dissent, that these industries are important for scientific work in general and are absolutely necessary in time of war, but the fact is these industries cannot be developed, or even maintained, without sonic measure of protection. Some of them are in a very precarious position now; some of them are actually threatened with extinction. It is only with difficulty that those who are responsible for some of these industries are able to keep them going. Some have actually threatened to shut their doors. Therefore, in these cases, the difference between August and November may very likely be the difference between continuance of the industry and extinction.
Part II of the Bill is devoted to the protection of industries from competition resulting from the depreciated condition of foreign exchanges. That, as your Lordships know, is a fruitful source of unemployment. I have made inquiries of the Board of Trade, and they tell me that they are constantly receiving deputations and representations from industries who are in this imperilled condition. I have here a list of industries, nearly fifty in number, from which these complaints are constantly being received. I will not trouble your Lordships with the whole list, but will give only those from which the complaints are most insistent. They are: glassware of all kinds, gas mantles, hosiery, electrical fittings, cutlery, agricultural machines, machine tools, and so on.
Now the situation in respect of these industries is much worse than it was a year ago. Up to the end of 1920 there was a certain upward movement and recovery in trade. At that time, however, there occurred a violent drop, and the country found itself face to face with a very serious position. Trade is just now beginning to show signs of recovery, and the one thing

103
in the way of the successful prosecution of that recovery is the feeling that traders are liable to be swamped by goods coming in from Europe at abnormally low prices owing to the low rates of exchange. For these trades the sooner the Bill is passed the better, and I will tell your Lordships why. Under the machinery of the Bill Committees are to be set up to examine into the conditions of the various threatened industries. They will have to report whether employment is being seriously affected in consequence of imports coming in under the conditions that I have described. All this will take some time. It is obviously desirable that the protection should be given as soon as possible, that the Committees should be set up as soon as possible, that their reports should be made as soon as possible, and that the orders consequent upon them should be issued.
Then I come to the last object of this Bill—namely, the prevention of dumping in the ordinary sense of the term; that is, the sale of goods in this country at prices below the cost of production in the country of manufacture. These cases, I agree, at not so urgent as the others, but there may at any time, so I am informed, be a sudden dumping, on a very large scale, of articles of this description in this country from the large accumulated stocks that are known to exist abroad. Here again, if the Bill is passed, Committees will be set up to investigate these things and issue the requisite orders. The Bill is to be confined only to cases of real necessity, but it is important to have time to investigate these cases, and if your Lordships defer considering this Bill till the late autumn, I have no doubt that many valuable months will be lost and that serious injury to trade might be caused.
There was one observation on the part of the noble Marquess which I confess did rather astonish me. He said that this Bill constituted a new departure in our fiscal system. I wonder if that remark ought in fairness to proceed from the lips of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I ought to explain that I was quoting some remarks made by Professor Hewins on a public occasion within the last ten days or so.
THE MARQUESS C U R Z O N OF KEDLESTON: I accept the noble Marquess's correction, but I was disposed to
104
think from the argument he developed upon the Bill that he himself shared the view that the Bill was based upon economic principles with which he personally disagreed. I brought down with me to-day the Resolutions of the Economic Conference of the Allies which was held at Paris in June, 1916. On that occasion, at any rate in the earlier part of the proceedings, this country had the good fortune to be represented—Mr. Asquith's Government was then in power—by the noble Marquess himself, and among the Resolutions which were passed were these:
"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";
and again:
"They may, for example, have recourse either to enterprises subsidised, directed or controlled by the Governments themselves or to the grant of financial assistance for the encouragement of scientific and technical research and the development of national industries and resources; to Customs Duties or prohibitions of a temporary or permanent character; or to a combination of these different methods."
That is the basis of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, and I think I am entitled to say that in so far as these Resolutions go, and in so far as the Bill attempts to translate them into practice, we are entitled to receive not the criticism or the hostility but the support of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition.
I hope that in these few remarks I have shown your Lordships that there is a good case, in respect of the legislation which you are going to be asked to discuss, for asking your Lordships to sacrifice your persona convenience, as you have so often done before in the public interest; that the strain which is going to be placed upon you is, if my analysis be at all correct—and I could give it to you in detail, days ark hours—nothing like what has been sup posed; and that it is really important that these Bills, notably the Safeguarding o Industries Bill, should be passed into law at an early date. In these circumstances I hope that your Lordships will be willing to give to the Government the requisite support to enable us to carry out this programme. I will not speak about it from the point of view of a holiday. No Scot land for me. No seaside for me. I only hope that the noble Marquess will be more fortunate. His Majesty's Government as

105
for no holiday, but only that modified respite from their Parliamentary labours which will qualify them to carry on their work. They only- ask you to enable them, in the course of the present month, for the reasons that I have named, to carry these measures into law, and I hope that not for the first time, nor for the twentieth time, your Lordships will give, for the reasons I have named, that measure of considera- to the appeal which I have just ventured to address to you.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess that I do not rise without a certain sense of embarrassment upon the present occasion, because of the two speeches which have preceded mine. Let me say, in the first place, that there is not one member of your Lordships' House, in whatever quarter he sits and to whatever Party he belongs, who does not entirely sympathise with the noble Marquess and his colleagues in their desire to have a holiday, not merely out of general humanity, but out of gratitude to them, for we all agree that they have worked most tremendously hard and are entitled to a holiday. Indeed, in my judgment, the sooner they get a holiday the better it will be for them and, I think, the better for the country.
The noble Marquess will forgive me if I do not propose to say, in the very few words that I have to utter this afternoon, very much about the Bills in question. I do not think that this is an occasion on which to discuss the merits of a particular Bill. I thought, judging from the noble Marquess's speech, that he seemed to think that the whole question was a question of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. We had almost a Second Reading speech on the subject. But I do not propose to deal with the merits of that Bill. If I may venture to say so, in the presence of the noble Marquess, I think he was going almost to the limits of what was orderly in dealing with them in such detail as he did. Of course, he was quite certain not to overpass the limits, and I do not suggest for a moment that he did, but he certainly went rather near it.
When speaking about this matter, I want to address myself to it not as a Conservative or as a Unionist, and not in any capacity at all except as a member of your Lordships' House. I have sat for a good many years in the House, and I have joined with others, and perhaps I may,
106
if your Lordships will allow me that degree of egotism, say that I have taken a prominent part myself always, in fighting for the rights and privileges of the House of Lords. I have done my very utmost for the House. I have believed in the House of Lords. I have believed in its powers, and resisted to the best of my capacity—and so have my noble friends near me—all invasions of its powers. If your Lordships will allow me to say so, I was a little surprised at hearing the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition so urgent on behalf of the powers of the House of Lords this afternoon. I do not know that be has always felt that so strongly as he feels it now, but so far as we are concerned, and those Independent Unionist Peers who sit in different parts of the House, our withers are unwrung. We have always done our very utmost for the House of Lords and its capacity to do its work, and it is from that point of view that I want to approach matters this afternoon.
A few years back we were struggling over the Parliament Act. We were bitterly opposed upon that subject to the noble Lords who sit here. We were assisted by many members of the present Government in resisting it. We were unsuccessful, and the Parliament Act was, by very highhanded action, practically passed over our heads, and we were forced to accept it. There was, however, one thing which was left to us, one obligation which was thrown upon us, one thing with which the country still entrusted us, and that was the duty of the revision of Bills which were submitted to us. That was the function that was left to us. There were two courses open to us after the passage of the Parliament Act. We might have sulked. We might have refused to play. We might have said to the House of Commons and the country: "You treated us in this way. All right, do your own business; we will not be bothered any more." I think that would have been a very unpatriotic and undignified attitude to take up, and we did not adopt it. We accepted the new position cast upon us, and some of us did our best to be an efficient revising Chamber; to try, if we could, to make such Amendments in the Bills sent up to us from another place as would make the Bills workable, and to make such modifications as would, we believed, make those Bills better and more in accordance with the wishes of the country.

107
That is what we did, and, if your Lordships will allow me to dwell upon that for a moment, our obligation is to the country. It does not very much matter what we do as regards ourselves, and, if I may say so, it does not very much matter what we do as regards the Government. What is important is that we should do our duty by the country, which relics upon us to see that these Bills are properly considered. In those conditions your Lordships are presented with the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not generally act with the Leader of the Opposition; on many subjects I am very much opposed to him. But looking at it as a member of your Lordships' House, with all the history which I ventured to detail to you, what course ought we to pursue? Perhaps one of your Lordships will say: "You ought to protest; you ought to come down to the House, and rise in your place, and you ought to stand at this box and protest against the treatment of the House of Lords." We have done that. We have done it session after session, generally three times a session, at each adjournment. We have done it to the extent that the words which have to be used on this occasion absolutely stink in one's nostrils.
And we are not even received with respect by the Government now; they think it a matter of gentlemanlike ridicule. We had a discussion on this subject only a few nights ago. The noble Marquess behind me and the noble Marquess opposite have referred to it. The Leader of the House received out protests in the most lighthearted way—he made almost an apology for it this evening. But the worst of it is that that light-hearted way was the real man—that was what he really thought; that was what was behind his face all the time. He knew that these protests were futile, and all that he cared about, and all that Governments do care about—Governments in the plural, my Lords—is to get their business through. And they do not care a bit about the privileges of the House of Commons, or the privileges of the House of Lords, nor do they care whether they do their work properly, because their conception of the proper work of Parliament is to register the wishes of the Government; and therefore the matter for them is quite simple. And if a protest is made to them they always receive it courteously—,I cannot conceive of the noble Marquess doing anything except what is courteous—but always with a smile half concealed,
108
or perhaps not concealed at all, and a knowledge that these protests will be made again and again, and always in vain.
And even to-night the noble Marquess—the real man coming out: Mr. Hyde peeping through the mask of Dr. Jekyll—could not help using the old taunt that it just depends which side you are sitting upon, and that if the Leader of the Opposition went across and sat in the seat of the Leader of the House he would make the speeches of the Leader of the House, and the Leader of the House would make the speeches of the noble. Marquess. That is all very good chaff, very good fooling, but is that the way the House of Lords is going to be treated? Is that the way our protests are going to be received? If so, it is perfectly certain that the protests are useless, and that we might spare our breath and make no protests at all.
I am therefore driven to decide what we ought to do in these circumstances. There are a certain number of noble Lords who will come to you and say:"Well, we agree with you in the main; the House of Lords is very badly treated. We agree with you, in the second place, that protests are futile, and that something more than a protest ought to be attempted; but this is the wrong opportunity." I am sure that a great many noble Lords think that this is the wrong opportunity. But they are the kind of noble Lords who always think that if you propose anything like action it is the wrong opportunity. They naturally shrink from taking a strong step. I do not think the step is a very strong one, and I do think that they ought, on the present occasion, to face the real difficulty and make up their minds whether they are going beyond the stage of protest and going to reach the stage of action.
Now, let us consider for a moment what is the nature of this Motion. I have looked at it with the greatest care. Let me say, in the first place, before I come to the terms of the Motion, that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has not dealt with an argument which was put to him twice on the last occasion, and he did not deal with it then—I mean the argument that when Parliament meets in the winter, as it probably will meet, to consider the new Irish legislation which will be necessary, although the House of Lords will be called together, yet for about three weeks it will have absolutely nothing to do. I have the great honour and privilege of speaking to

109
a very large number of your Lordships this evening, and I want your Lordships to consider what that means.
All of us who have a strong sense of responsibility will have to come back in the winter when Parliament is summoned again. I am supposing that the negotiations with Mr. de Valera succeed. Supposing they succeed, and there is a new Home Rule Bill, we shall all have to come together in the winter, and a new Home Rule Bill will be submitted to the House of Commons. I have no doubt that that will be vigorously fought—I am not saying whether it ought to be fought or not; I am merely suggesting what is sure to happen—and it will take three or four weeks to go through the House of Commons. During that time the House of Lords will have nothing at all to do, if the programme of the Government is carried out. The officers of the House will be here, all the messengers will be brought back from their holidays, clerks will have to be in attendance, the whole paraphernalia of the House of Lords will have to be available. I suppose we shall be called to meet for ten minutes or so every now and then, and the House itself will have nothing to do. It seems almost marvellous that the Government do not see that the proper thing is to let some of the business which we do not want to do now stand over to that period in the winter, when otherwise we shall have nothing to do. I hope your Lordships will appreciate that point, and also the fact that, although it has been put twice to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House he has not been able to find any answer to it.
Now, what are the terms of the Motion? I hope your Lordships will see that there is at the end of the Motion a proviso—
"Provided that this Resolution shall not apply to the Railways Bill, or to the further proceedings on any Bill entered on by general consent."
Let me say, parenthetically, as regards the Railways Bill, that we have done our best to assist the Government, as noble Lords know, by asking several of our number to meet the Government and discuss whether the Railways Bill ought to be pressed forward as an urgent matter. Upon their report, and being satisfied that such was the case, no one suggests that the Railways Bill should not be proceeded with, and the noble Marquess has put it into the terms of his Motion. But when the noble Marquess the Leader of the House just now said that no one suggested that the Railways
110
Bill would not be adequately discussed I must venture to differ. I am afraid it is very unlikely that the Railways Bill will be adequately discussed. I think it in the highest degree improbable that it will be adequately discussed. When you have noble Lords representing all sorts of different interests, who ought to be here and to take part in the discussion, it is not possible to get them to discuss the Bill in the second and third week in August. The Bill will have to be passed because it is an urgent matter, but, like so many Bills, it will go through improperly discussed and, it may be, improperly drafted. We know quite well that Bill after Bill, which this House has been urged to pass in a great hurry, has been found afterwards to have in it any number of blemishes which it was the duty of your Lordships' House to have corrected.
Then I take the second part of the proviso, which lays it down that the Resolution shall not apply to "the further proceedings on any Bill entered on by general consent." That is a very wide phrase and I think the noble Marquess is well advised to put it in. It is intended to give your Lordships' House complete liberty, by general consent, to allow the stages of any Bill to be taken. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I was not going to discuss the terms of any Bill, nor am I. The noble Marquess cited many Bills, among others, the Licensing Bill, and he told us that it would come to us, he believed, practically as an agreed Bill; at least, I understood him to say so. If that is the case there will be no difficulty about that Bill. If it comes to us as an agreed Bill it will come under the terms of the last phrase in the Resolution, and the further proceedings on the Bill will be taken by general consent.
Your Lordships' House is a practical Assembly, and when there is general consent about anything there never is the least difficulty. What is true of the Licensing Bill will be true of any other Bill as to which there is general consent that the stages ought to be passed. Therefore, there is no reason at all to think that any of the great difficulties which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House anticipated are likely to arise. No, the Resolution is drawn in very wide terms which give your Lordships every sort of elasticity you may require. We ought to approach this subject not only as members of the House

111
of Lords but in a conciliatory spirit, and I hope I have not used any other terms in the course of what I have ventured to say to-night.
Let me repeat, in conclusion, that unless your Lordships take this opportunity of asserting your determination to perform your functions as. a revising Chamber thoroughly and adequately, I think you may abandon hope of doing it hereafter. You are at the parting of the ways. I admit that anybody may show blemishes here or there in this particular Resolution. They may say that they do not want to follow the Leader of the Opposition. They may say that they do not think this is a good opportunity. They may say a hundred things, but, looking at the matter broadly as members of the House of Lords, and only as members of the House of Lords, they have this opportunity of vindicating the protests they have made over and over again against the way in which the House has been treated, and I earnestly hope that when it comes to a Division they will remember their responsibility in giving their votes.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it probably will not have escaped observation that the attitude of His Majesty's Government to-day is somewhat different from that which was adopted on the last occasion when this Question was debated. The chief argument advanced against the Motion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition to-day is the urgent necessity of passing the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. I do not propose to offer any remarks upon that Bill, but it seems to me to be a somewhat surprising thing that, after we have dragged out an existence for something like sixty or seventy years under a Free Trade system, we are now suddenly told that the most important industries of the country may collapse within the next two or three months unless immediate action is taken.
I do not propose to touch upon this part of the question; I prefer to deal with the other—namely, the necessity of giving overworked Ministers a rest. I do not think anybody will dispute the fact that certain Ministers, at all events, are overworked, and chief amongst those I would cite my noble friend the Leader of this House. I do not suppose there is any member of the Government who has such hard work as he has, or who has, as a matter of fact, worked so hard in the
112
course of his existence, and I suppose I might almost bracket with him the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, whose duties are also of a most exacting and multifarious character. But when I look at the other occupants of the front bench I must admit that I feel considerable doubt as to whether they are overworked. After all, they are only called upon to come down here for three days, and sometimes for a very short period in those three days, in the course of a certain number of weeks in the year, and I cannot help thinking that they are able to support the labours allotted to them without much difficulty.
However regrettable the fact may be that certain Ministers are overworked, it seems to me that there are two obvious answers to that complaint. In the first place, everybody must realise that nobody need be a Minister unless he wants to be. There is no obligation upon anybody to take office if it is offered to him; it is open to him to refuse. The second point is—and I hope it will not be thought that there is anything personal in it—that we have not to consider the convenience of what is, after all, only a small part of the Parliamentary machine; we have to consider the convenience and efficiency of the whole Parliamentary machine, Ministers included. I do not think it is sufficiently realised, perhaps, that all contentious legislation—and all legislation that is any good is contentious—is only carried through by a process of physical exhaustion or by the threat of the curtailment of holidays.
In former years—I can remember the time myself—legislation was carried through only by means of all-night sittings. That practice was eventually supplemented by the closure, and we now have a combination of those two methods of pressure. When the mass of legislation reaches this House—which, in the usual course of things, it does towards the middle of August—the Government of the day, whatever it may be, always calculates that it will be impossible to collect sufficient individuals here to offer any effective obstruction to that legislation, and up to now that calculation has invariably proved to be absolutely correct. Year by year, we witness the same spectacle. Year by year, we hear the same grumbles or explosions of indignation on the part of noble Lords on both sides. And year by year, we witness the

113
same humiliating spectacle of a grudging and unwilling acquiescence in what is proposed by the Government of the day.
The question we have to ask ourselves to-day, quite simply, is: Are we going once again to repeat this sorry and useless performance, or is the worm really going to turn? As a matter of fact, we have for the first time, a really good opportunity. I am not, and I have never been, in favour of falling out with the House of Commons or flouting public opinion in any respect. I believe such a course of conduct to be extremely foolish on our part. But in the present instance, who are we flouting and with whom do we disagree? We are not acting in opposition to the House of Commons, because I am firmly convinced that if a vote were taken in the House of Commons, without the pressure of the Government Whips, it would be found that that. House was strongly in favour of an autumn session. Furthermore, I am perfectly sure that on this occasion—it does not very often happen—we have the sympathy of the public if the public takes any interest in politics at all.
This House, thanks to the action of independent persons, and in no sense owing to the action of official persons on either side, now enjoys a much better position in the estimation of the country than it has held for a long time past, and, as a matter of fact, we now have friends in the most unexpected quarters. My attention was called to a passage which appears in The Nation this week, written by Mr. Massingham, who, of all persons, could hardly be described as a friend of thus House. I find these words written by him:—
"I confess to having acquired an automatic habit of looking to that institution [the House of Lords] as a means of keeping an endangered liberty or two. Just now it happens to be in its almost normal attitude of revolt against the Government. It is asked to do this year what it was required to do at the tail of the session of 1920—that is to say, let a mass of bad and almost undebated Bills swish through its portals."
I need not quote anything more than that, which represents the view of a typical democrat. I am convinced that is a sentiment; which is held largely in most unsuspected quarters.
So far as I am concerned, I fail to detect in the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite any subtle conspiracy or intrigue.
114
It seems to me to be a perfectly plain and intelligible Motion, and one which imperatively demands our support. Almost every one here, in his mind, probably feels that the noble Marquess is absolutely justified and right in his action. I would conclude by repeating in other words what has been said by previous speakers in the debate. If we wish to show that all the protestations that have been made in former years were, so to speak, meaningless and rubbish, then we shall vote against the Motion, but I would warn noble Lords who propose to adopt that course that if they do so it is merely a stultification of the language which has been employed here for many years consecutively, and that it is quite impossible to conceive that any attention would be paid in future to protestations of a like character on our part.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the terms of this Motion are simple; the issue that it raises is plain; and I certainly do not intend to occupy your time at any length in expatiating upon the expediency of it. It is a Motion directed to the remedy of an abuse which has, by common consent, been the subject of protest in this House for many sessions. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House has re-awakened the echoes of dead debates, and we can learn from them that, in language even more emphatic than any that has been used this afternoon, people on one side of the House and on the other have again and again used their influence to prevent the end of a session being so crowded with legislation that this House had not the adequate leisure to discuss the measures that were brought before its notice. Within the short time that I have had the honour of sitting in your Lordships' House these protests have been frequent, and I think that the ill-result is obvious. You have only to look at the second subject of business on to-day's Order Paper to discover that a Bill that was passed through this House at the very end of last session—passed through this House, as I believe, against the better judgment of many who voted for it—is now brought before you for repeal, after the country has suffered a loss of £20,000,000 through its having been passed into law.
To me protestations that are not followed up by action are weak and unmanly things. If we really do protest against the treatment to which this House has

115
been subjected, then we ought to act. If we are not prepared to act, then I say, in the name of the honour and dignity of this House, let us for the future cease from protest. To protest against the evil that it lies within your own power to remove, and to take no steps to remedy it, does not appear to me to be a proceeding that would recommend itself to any independent body of men. That we are being asked to discuss these measures under the pressure of great urgency, I think few people can deny. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House pointed out that one of the important Bills, the Railways Bill, is exempted from the Motion. But why? Because we had been told that if that Bill were postponed a heavy financial loss would be brought upon the country. That is the only reason. This House must, of course, avoid by every means in its power adding to the hideous burden which seems to grow day by day upon our backs, and that is the reason why the Railways Bill is exempted.
But when we come to these other Bills, I am bound to say that the speech of the noble Marquess reminded me of a passage in literature with which no doubt he is very familiar. It is a description in a very interesting book, written at the beginning of the fifteenth century, which extols the merits of fishing over every other form of sport, and it points out that as for hunting the disadvantage is that when your hounds have started hot upon the scent you find in the end, to your disgust, that instead of having brought down a deer all that they have obtained is what the lady referred to as "a hedgyhoggy." That is exactly what the noble Marquess has done. He has brought a hedgehog across the path of this debate in the shape of this Safeguarding of Industries Bill, and it is suggested—on what ground I am wholly unable to understand—that this Motion has behind it some sinister purpose upon the life or health of that measure. How in the world can that be so? We ask that that measure, with the other measures, may be discussed in this House from November until the middle of December if necessary. Why is that to injure the measure, unless, indeed, the noble Marquess thinks that prolonged and leisurely discussion upon its merits will be fatal to its passage?
I cannot see why it should be thought that the people who have been responsible for this Motion should have in their minds
116
for a moment any particular one of the Bills which still remain for consideration. No; as I understand this Motion it is not framed in any spirit of obstruction, and has no desire whatever to interfere with the progress of Government business. It is aimed at this—to secure, in the interests of the public, in the interests of the nation, that measures shall receive at the hands of this House that careful consideration which we are bound to give, and which it is almost impossible to give at this stage of the year.
It is no use pretending that people have not got other interests or occupations which act upon them like a magnet at the present time. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, pointed out that, after all, there are such things as holidays, and there are such things as children, and people are not unwilling to spend their holidays in the society of their families. Why should not they? What is there in the interests of the nation that requires that they should be unable to do so? There has been mainly one argument brought against it, namely, that the industries of this country are at this moment in such peril that unless the Safeguarding of Industries Bill is passed now, instead of two months hence, grave disaster may overtake them. I do not doubt that that information has been placed before the noble Marquess by the traders, through the Board of Trade. But can anybody really believe that suddenly, at this last moment, these traders have become in imminent peril. I am utterly unable to credit it. If, indeed, their industries are in such jeopardy, I want to know why it is that the Government have not thought of them before? Why is it that at the last moment of this session this Bill is brought forward and passed under the threat that certain industries are in grave apprehension as to what will happen. It seems to me incredible for ally person who has a knowledge of the transactions of business to believe that there is any real foundation for the complaint of these manufacturers; and you will find that they are the men who would have made exactly the same complaint at any time during the last few years.
That is really the whole answer to the case. That the interest and convenience of this House would be consulted is certain. That the interest and convenience of the House of Commons would be consulted is equally certain, and I believe also that the

117
convenience of numbers of members of the Government would also be served, if the Motion was carried. All that is left, therefore, is the idea, which appears to have taken possession of those who control the Cabinet, that you must on no account have an autumn session, although you must be recalled in the autumn for the purpose of considering some new legislation then.
That Parliament will re-assemble in November is regarded as a hopeful certainty by everybody who follows public events. The Marquess of Salisbury has pointed out that in those circumstances there must be a period when this House will be, to some extent, in a state of suspended animation. It will not be occupied with discussing first-class Bills. Why is it that that moment cannot be used for the purpose of discussing the first-class measures that remain over? I certainly hope your Lordships will accept the Motion, and that you will not think—if you do, you will think wrongly—that because it has been associated with the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, therefore it has behind it some sinister Free Trade influence intended to injure the prospects of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. I speak with confidence when I say that it has behind it nothing whatever of the kind. The only thing that has actuated the noble Marquess in placing the Motion on the Paper is that your Lordships may be asked to translate into action that which your words have proclaimed from time to time, farther back than my memory permits me to go.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I rose twice with the object of putting the Question, but further speeches were made in support of the Motion and it has been suggested that perhaps silence at this stage of the debate on the part of the Government may show some disrespect to those who have spoken, and might be misunderstood on other grounds. I recognise in the fullest manner the right of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to make the protest he has to-night on behalf of the House of Lords as a body and the private members of your Lordships' House. The noble Marquess has never had responsibility for conducting business in the House of Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh, yes I have.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not as Leader.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, indeed not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is, after all, the responsibility of the Leader. Therefore, the noble Marquess has completely survived the charges which he has made against others. How far the noble Marquess would have survived them if he had happened to find himself leading this House in the three years which have elapsed since the. Armistice, your Lordships must judge, and it is quite useless for any person to dogmatise on it. I, as a member of the Government, am not conscious of the slightest feeling of surprise or resentment when the noble Marquess adopts the attitude he has in this debate. But I do confess, when I regard the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, as the exponent of this Motion, and see him reinforced with every appearance of deep conviction by the impeccable rectitude of Lord Buckmaster, that I am astonished and conscious of some slight feeling of resentment.
Both Lord Crewe and Lord Buckmaster were members of a Government which—I say this deliberately—im posed more burdens upon your Lordships' House, at a later period of the session, involving a greater mass of debateable matter—matter which was deeply resented in this House—than any Government of which I am conscious. What was the view then taken by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe? Did he come to this House and make a protest on behalf of the position of the House of Lords? Was that desire, which Lord Buckmaster assured us is the single motive of those who now introduce this Motion to-day, operative then in the very powerful bosom of the noble Marquess and the less powerful bosom o [the noble and learned Lord, who then occupied the position of Solicitor-General, and was not a member of the Cabinet? The noble Marquess was one of the most influential members of the Cabinet, and decisions were taken overloading the programme in this House to a degree, I submit, far greater than that of which complaint is made to-day.
LORD BUCKMASTER: What session?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The last two sessions of the Government of which the noble and learned Lord was a member.

119
If he will consult with the noble Marquess, who bore the heat and burden of the day in this House, and would throw his mind back to the date in August and to the Bills enumerated by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, he will see that the language I employ is not exaggerated.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It does not really matter, but I was not a member of the Government at the time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He was a member of the Government in the last session preceding the war. He is aware, no doubt, of the relative state of business as between the two Houses in the month of July, 1914; and the noble Marquess, of course, has a very vivid recollection of all these matters. I am not adopting this argument with the object of saying that one side is as bad as the other. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that that is a very futile contention. I use this argument for this reason. It seems to me that in the circumstances in which the Government have carried on for the last ten years, probably for more than ten years, whatever Government is in power will find itself driven to come to the House of Lords at the end of a session with a larger number of measures for their consideration than is, in all the circumstances of the case, reasonable. I believe such is the pressure of public affairs that whatever Government takes the place of the present Government will find itself confronted with some of the inconveniences of this course. Therefore, I do not reject the argument which has been used, that the House may be well advised to take the course of making that protest which the House is asked to make, if, on the balance of convenience, you think that is the wiser course.
Is it the wiser course? I listened to the speech that was made by Lord Crewe with a constantly growing admiration for the diplomatic skill which we have long known him to possess, and I am of opinion, on the whole, that the achievement which he has exhibited to us to-night must be accounted the most remarkable in a remarkable political career. What has Lord Crewe succeeded in doing? He has succeeded, apparently, in uniting Lord Salisbury with himself in attempting to persuade the House of Lords to refuse to pass Government legislation after a certain date, except in the circumstances which are indicated in the terms of the Motion.
120
I could not help wondering, while Lord Buckmaster spoke, why he was so very careful to insist that the attitude adopted by himself and his friends had nothing whatever to do with the merits or demerits of what is popularly known as the Key Industries Bill. I absolutely accept, of course, the assurance of Lord Buckmaster that in supporting this Motion he is quite uninfluenced by the fortunes of the Key Industries Bill. It only then remains for us to note what has taken place in the House of Commons, and what has taken place to-night in this House, as one of the most remarkable political coincidences of recent times. I do not know whether your Lordships have personally followed the recent proceedings in the House of Commons. Let me summarise them in a sentence. The whole opposition in the House of Commons, which has proceeded from the Independent Liberal Party, has been an opposition seriously directed at the Key Industries Bill, and at no other Bill; and it is well known, to anybody who has followed the political developments of the last three weeks in the House of Commons, that I do not exaggerate when I say that every other Bill which has come before your Lordships' House between now and the adjournment would have been conceded, almost without debate, in another place, had the Government in their turn been prepared to make some concession upon the Key Industries Bill. Nobody who is aware of the progress of events in another place for the last three weeks could dispute that proposition.
We did not think proper, in another place, to give way, and I will tell your Lordships why. The Key Industries Bill may be a good Bill, or it may be a bad Bill, but it is, at least, a long overdue Bill. Lord Buck-master said we had waited three years. That taunt would have had some contact with reasonableness if those three years had been spent in idleness in this House. The noble and learned Lord is well aware of the burden under which we have laboured in this House and in another place. I said that it was overdue because, as the Leader of the House pointed out, Lord Crewe himself is the father, in all its main features, of the Key Industries Bill. Lord Crewe was not only a member of the deputation which went from this country to confer with our Allies upon this subject during the war; Lord Crewe was actually the leader of the deputation that went for that purpose to Paris, and that reached the conclusions

121
which, as I shall endeavour to show when it reaches this House, are contained within the four corners of that Bill in its present shape. But the fact remains that that small Party which the noble Marquess represents with so much ability—small in this House, and very small in another place—has concentrated upon this as the one Bill which led them to oppose the proposal of the Government to adjourn and as the one Bill which, if we would sacrifice it, would restore complete harmony of view between the two Parties in another place.
It is at least astonishing that, such being the notorious position elsewhere, we find that the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, puts down a Motion which, on the terms of it, allows any agreed Bill to go through before Parliament separates in the ordinary course. In other words, almost every Bill—and Lord Salisbury has conceded that this might apply to the Licensing Bill—that may be agreed between Parties may be dealt with before we separate but the one Bill which Lord Crewe and Lord Buck-master, by their Motion, will not allow us to deal with is the one Bill in opposing which the political supporters of Lord Crewe and Lord Buckrnaster in another place have consolidated their forces and mustered all their strength. It may be a coincidence, but it is a very singular coincidence; and I, for one, warmly congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who is perhaps slightly deficient in man strength in this House, on having succeeded in effecting the capture of Lord Salisbury for the purpose of postponing the Key Industries Bill, a Bill in which, I will undertake to say, the overwhelming majority of the Unionist Party in the House of Commons and elsewhere take a profound interest.
It is easy for those who have long been opposed to us upon tariff questions to speak contemptuously of the delay which has taken place in the production of this measure, and to belittle its importance. But those of us who, for many years now, have not been, like Lord Crewe, convinced Free Traders, those of us who for many years have believed in such an adjustment as is contemplated by the terms of this Bill, may be forgiven if we are inclined to adopt the view that, having succeeded in gaining now a position in which that Bill will shortly be through all its stages in the House of Commons and if nothing happens as the result of the debates here, of seeing it placed upon the Statute Book,
122
we should reply to noble Lords who say: "We are not here because of our hostility to the Key Industries Bill, but we are here only to make a protest on behalf of the liberties of the House of Lords," by saying to them: "Select some other object for your protest than the one object to the opposition to which you are, in feeling and in controversy, so deeply committed."
I listened with astonishment to some of the reasons we were invited to consider for the decision which the House is about to reach. Lord Newton produces a paragraph from The Nation. That is his line of admonition to the House of Lords. He says we are gaining support to-day from quarters which never extended it to us in the past. "Let me read you, "he says," a eulogy which Mr. Massingham of The Nation has recently passed upon us." Has it really come to this—that when we wish to discover the touchstone of conduct in the present discussion, when we are reaching a decision with respect to which different views are taken by our own friends, we are to look to the eulogy of those who, during the whole of their political lives, have never ceased from covering this House with ridicule, and who would have destroyed it at any moment if it had been in their power to do so?
I am one who, in my political career, has been accustomed to look to my friends, and not to my enemies, for advice in contingencies of this kind. I remember well, in the fifteen years during which I have been in Parliament that this House has found itself involved in many grave and bitter struggles, and from sonic of them we have emerged with our ancient historical powers truncated and even destroyed. More than any other man in this House, Lord Crewe is responsible for the circumstance that here to-day we meet, as Lord Salisbury has reminded us, a maimed Legislative Assembly. More than to any other man, the destruction of the age-long liberty of this House is due to him. I, for one, when I want counsel as to what we shall do at a grave moment of crisis in the history of this institution, will go to those who afforded us their succour and their help so long as the struggle raged, and their sympathy when we lost and the struggle was concluded. I would not select as safe advisers those whose object it was to compass that destruction, and who, in the sequel, effectively carried out that object.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything more, although the terms of my Motion permit me to reply, but the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack compels me to add a few observations. That speech was evidently intended to wind up the debate with the fervid eloquence from the noble and learned Viscount with which we are so familiar. To the best of my ability I must say one or two words in reply to the noble and learned Viscount. The noble Viscount's speech, though so eloquent as I have stated, was in a way transparent. It was purely and simply an attempt to create prejudice. The noble Marquess who leads the House started on a similar line by devoting a considerable portion of his speech to what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, with great propriety, described as a Second Beading discourse on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. The noble and learned Viscount has devoted at least an equal portion of his oration to that measure. But the introduction of that measure as a main topic of debate to-day only becomes relevant if the noble and learned Viscount is prepared to say that he does not believe what I have deliberately said, and what Lord Buckmaster has said.
I have stated, to the best of my ability, the purpose of this Motion, which, in effect, is simply that as your Lordships' House is quite certain anyhow to have to meet in the autumn, we may just as well adjourn now and do sonic of your Lordships' business then. The noble and learned Viscount did not touch upon what I assumed to be a certainty—and it has not been contradicted—that your Lordships will be called together sonic time in November. But for the purpose of exciting the sympathy of those of your Lordships—and I have no doubt there are many—who are keenly interested in the future of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, you are told, without an atom of evidence, that it is a dislike of that measure which has prompted the Motion now placed on the Paper. I have already said, and my noble and learned friend has said, that that is not the explanation, and I repeat once more that it is only by throwing doubt on our word that the main part of the speech of the noble and learned Viscount (and the speech of the noble Marquess, though far less in his case) becomes
124
in the slightest degree relevant to the discussion.
I am not going to waste your Lordships' time by entering into the question as to how far my presence at the Economic Conference in Paris disentitles me to express an opinion upon the necessity or otherwise of the particular measure for the safeguarding of industries which His Majesty's Government have introduced. I have no idea as to what the present condition of that measure is. I believe it has undergone some modifications in another place. As I have said, it undoubtedly will receive from noble Lords who dislike the idea of the artificial protection of industries, a good deal of notice and comment when it comes here. But what I ask your Lordships to consider is this. I conceive that the measure when it comes will, at any rate, on its main lines, receive the support of the majority of your Lordships' House. It probably would, if it was an infinitely more protectionist measure than I understand that it is. But why the noble Viscount should exhibit such intense indignation towards myself in assuming that the fact of the Bill being considered here in November, instead of in September, would mean that it is less likely to pass into law, I confess I am altogether unable to comprehend.
I do not at all dispute that the measure will require considerable notice here, and I think it is likely to receive that notice to better purpose in November than if it is dragged on through the early part of September. That, I hope, is a sufficiently harmless observation to make. I do protest very strongly against this particular question being dragged in, as I repeat once more, for the pure purpose of raising prejudice against this Motion and against myself as responsible for it; and I confess that it is a very long time since I can remember any occasion in your Lordships' House when one who has sat here, like myself, for sonic time, had so much reason to complain of what I can only call deliberately unfair treatment in the manner in which the noble and learned Viscount has brought the matter before your Lordships' House.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 104.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Haldane, V.

kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Northumberland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Lovat, L.

Camden, M,

Templetown, V.

MacDounell, L.

Cholmondeley, M

Monk Bretton, L.

Crewe, M.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain).

Amphtill, L.

Morris, L.

Anslow, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Salisbury, M.

Avebury, L.

Newton, L.

Barrymore, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Bledisloe, L.

O'Hagan, E.

Buxton, E,

Boston, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Jersey, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kimberley, E.

Cawley, L.

Ritchie of Duandee, L.

Midleton, E.

Chalmers, L.

Sandys, L.

Morton, E.

Charming of Wellingborough, L.

Saye and Sele, E.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Charnwood, L.

Southwark, L.

Portsmouth, E

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Roden, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Selborne, E.

Clinton, L.

Strachie, L.

Stanhope, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sumner, L.

Ebury, E.

Swaythling, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Templemore, L.

Burnham, V.

Terrington, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Emmott, L.

Vernon, L. [Teller.]

Churchill, V.

Erskine, L.

Weardale, L.

Falkland, V.

Farrer, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Gladstone, V.

Gainford, L.

Wester, Wemyss, E.

Gosehen, V.

Hindlip, L.

Wynford, L

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Verulam, E.

Ernle, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Faringdon, L.

Argyll D

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Gisborough, E.

Marlborough D

Sandhurst, V. [L. Chamberlain.)

Glenarthur, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Astor, V.

Gorell, E.

Sutherland, D.

Chilston, V.

Harris, L

Finlay, V.

Hylton, B.

Hardinge, V.

Illingworth, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Hill, V.

Inverforth, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hood, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Bath, M.

Milner, V.

Lamington, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Pirrie, V.

Leverhulme, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ludlow, L.

Amherst, E.

Aberdare, L.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Ancaster, E.

Abinger, L.

Merthyr, L.

Bradford, E.

Aldenham, L.

Meston, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Methuen, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Monekton, L. (V. Galway.)

Clarendon, E.

Ashfield, B.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Cromer, E.

Atkinson, L.

Phillimore, L.

Drogheda, E.

Basing, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Eldon, E.

Brownlow, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Cheylesmore, L.

Ribblesdale, E.

Howe, E.

Clwyd, L.

Riddell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lindsey, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lucan, E.

Colwyn, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Sydenham, L.

Plymouth, E.

Dewar, L.

Wavertree, L.

Powis, E.

Dynevor, L.

Weir, L.

Sandwich, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Wyfold, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion | disagreed to accordingly.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I am sure you will readily understand that it is not an easy task for me to commend to your Lordships' acceptance a Bill which has for its purpose the reversal of a policy which you were asked to accept, and did accept, only some eight months ago. Though the task is naturally a difficult one, I cannot ask your indulgence on the ground that to me it is a painful one. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that, on every occasion when I had the opportunity, both by my voice and by my vote, I showed it was my opinion that it was a policy which could not be a permanent one. There were many who looked upon the Agriculture Bill, when it was first introduced into your Lordships' House, as a reasonable insurance for the corn growers against loss. The almost perpendicular fall in the price of corn which has occurred since that time, and, especially, in the price of oats, has turned that which might have been only a reasonable insurance premium into a huge subsidy, and we are faced with that difficulty at the present moment.
We had in your Lordships' House, a few weeks ago, a preliminary inquest. The noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, on that occasion gave a witty and somewhat caustic description of the funeral of the Agriculture Act. I did my best to reply to him then, and to say why the Government had to introduce a Bill repealing that Act. The reason I gave on that occasion, and the reason I give to your Lordships this evening, is the simple one that we cannot afford it. There can be no doubt that during the last few months the financial situation of the country has changed considerably, and changed, unfortunately, very much for the worse. It must be perfectly palpable to everybody that the unfortunate dispute in the coal trade has had a most depressing effect on the receipts of His Majesty's Treasury. I think I should be travelling too far afield if I were to discuss the whole policy which His Majesty's Government has followed since the Armistice in dealing with our industries and with labour questions. But I think I may be permitted to say that, whether the Government policy in the past
128
has been right or wrong, as a result of that policy, from the time of the Armistice up to the beginning of the coal dispute, there was not another country in Europe which was so free from acute poverty and dire distress as the United Kingdom. I also think I can say without much fear of contradiction that the enormous cost and burden of the war had up to that time been mainly, if not entirely, borne by those who had fixed incomes, or who were earning large salaries in this country, and that the actual burden of that great war had hardly been felt by the great mass of the working people of this country.
Unfortunately, we cannot say the same to-day. Unfortunately, the coal dispute has had the effect of reducing a large number of people to great poverty and of throwing tens of thousands out of employment, and it has caused distress among the working people, who, up to that time, even allowing for the high cost of living, were better off than they were before the war. But it has also undoubtedly placed a terrible strain on His Majesty's Exchequer. It must therefore, I think, be apparent to all that the policy which, I understand, the Government have decided upon—I know nothing, of course, of Cabinet secrets, but I think it has already been announced—the policy, namely, of abolishing subsidies, was one which, having regard to the solvency of the country, they were absolutely bound to pursue. However necessary it might be to aid industry by subsidies, there can be no doubt that the solvency of this country was the first consideration. That is practically the defence I used on a previous occasion in answer to the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, and it is the defence which I have to advance again to-day in introducing this Bill, which will practically have the effect of repealing the Corn Production Act and Part I of the Agriculture Act.
I think I ought at this stage to explain to your Lordships briefly the general effect of this Bill, and to give a rough outline of the proposals of the various clauses. Clause 1 repeals the Corn Production Acts, as from October 1, 1921. With it goes the guaranteed prices of wheat and oats, control of cultivation, and the wages boards. Clause 2 provides that, in place of the procedure for ascertaining the guaranteed prices for the harvest of 1921, laid down in the Agriculture Act, the Ministry will pay

129
to the farmer £3 in respect of each acre under wheat, and £1 in respect of each acre under oats. These payments Will be Made on or shortly after January 1. 1922. The advantage of this procedure will be that the Government can ascertain within the next few weeks; the exact sum which they will have to pay in respect of this year's crop, whereas, under the Agriculture Act, the amount could certainly not be ascertained before the beginning of April next year. And the farmers will also have the advantage of getting their money on January I. or soon afterwards, instead of having to wait for it probably until the following June or July. I think it is only right I should say also that this formal agreement as to the prices to be paid for wheat and oats was come to after considerable discussion and negotiation between the Ministry of Agriculture and the corn producers of the country.
Clause 3 provides for a special Fund for promoting agricultural research and education. It is proposed that the sum of £1,000,000 should be employed for that purpose during the present financial year, which ends on March 31 next, and that will be in addition to the current expenditure already sanctioned by Parliament for that purpose. It is, however, probably on Clause 4 that the largest amount of criticism will arise when this Bill reaches Committee. On that Clause, I anticipate, there will be more Amendments and discussion than on any other. It deals with conciliation councils which. It. is proposed to form. The Government have always taken the view that act guaranteed prices and the wages boards stand together, and that when one goes the other should go with it. We are of opinion, however that in order to avoid industrial disputes it is well that there should be some kind of conciliation boards—committees or councils, call them what you like—upon which both workers and employers should be evenly represented, and which should have power to deal with questions of wages and hours. We hope, and we believe, that the formation of voluntary councils such as these will have the effect of stopping disputes and of maintaining those excellent relations which have generally existed in the past between agricultural employers and their workmen.
I think it reflects the very highest credit on the agricultural employers and laborers of this country that, during the whole of the war, and during the troublous years
130
Through Which the country has passed, with the industrial disputes that have taken place, shine the termination of the war, except for a very few partial strikes the agricultural industry has been practically free of any serious labour disturbance. We are sincerely anxious that tins state of affairs should continue. We believe that these voluntary councils will have the effect of bringing employers and workmen together, and are more likely to bring about conciliation and to stop strikes and trouble than would be the case if such matters were left entirely to individual bargaining.
We do not wish to coerce these councils in any way. In the immediate future they will be very different, and eventually utterly different, from the existing wages boards. As this Bill is not likely now to pass until the end of August, and, if it becomes an Act, the wages boards, the guaranteed prices, and everything will conic to an end on October 1, the Government are afraid that in the short time available it might be impossible in many districts to get a conciliation committee together and to set it going. To meet that contingency it is provided in Clause 4 that the wages board is to continue for two years after the passing of this Act, or until conciliation committee is formed to take its place. But it is to continue for those two years or until a conciliation committee is formed, with this very considerable alteration—that the appointed members will disappear from the board and, of course, that the Central Wages Boo rd. in London will disappear as well.
Therefore, on those conciliation committees there will be direct representatives only of the men and the employers. Those two classes will meet together and attempt to settle differences of opinion which may exist between them. If they fail, it will be open to them, should they think fit, to appoint a Chairman, with or without a vote, to being them together. There is no necessity for them to appoint a Chairman; they may do so if they like. We believe that by leaving those conciliation committees as free as possible we shall obtain what we desire—a means by which any serious dispute in the agricultural industry may be averted—and we think on the whole it will tend to the existence and continuance of good relations between employers and employed. Apart front that, there is only one other small clause which I must men-

131
tion, Clause 5, which provides tie tribunal for determining the compensation to be paid for disturbance by an employer to a workman when he is turned out. Of his cottage. Those are the main provisions of the Bill, and they are provisions which I hope will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
Having said so much on the Bill, I must say a few words not in reply to the Notice which the noble Lord. Lord Strachie, has placed upon the Paper, but by way of an attempt to deal with what. I have no doubt, from the wording of his Motion, will be the charge he will bring against His Majesty's Government. In his Motion he describes the. Bill as "partial and lop-sided." The term"lop-sided" is one which, perhaps, could be applied more accurately to forestry than to agriculture, but I imagine he means that he does not approve of the action of the Government in repealing Part I of the Act without at. the same time repealing Part II, which, of course, deals specially and entirely with the question of land tenure in this country. I have no wish to press this argument, but I think it is one which your Lordships should consider. When the Agriculture Bill was in Committee of this House last year it was always made perfectly clear that those two Parts were entirely distinct. It will be recollected that Part TT was largely moulded, and brought into the shape in which it stands at the moment, by the considered opinion and vote of your Lordships.
I have no doubt the noble Lord will mention others, but there are three main questions involved in Part. II to which imagine he will refer. The first of them is the question of the arbitration upon rent.As your Lordships are aware, under Part II of the Act, which will remain, if there is a dispute between landlord and tenant as to the raising or lowering of rent, it can he taken to arbitration and the arbitrator will decide whether the farm is worth more or less. Regarding that, I must say plainly that, like the noble Lord opposite, I voted against.it; I did not care for that provision. I thought it was better for landlord and tenant to be left, as they had been in the past, perfectly free. On the other hand, it is now the law of the land. It is a question which, no doubt, considerably affects the question of land tenure, and I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that it was freely decided by your Lordships that it was a good thing both
132
for landlord and tenant that disputes about rent should go to arbitration. I well remember the Division by which, by no inconsiderable majority, your Lordships decided it was beneficial to both parties that an arbitrator should act in such cases.
The other question which is of most importance in Part II is the question of compensation for unreasonable disturbance. I use that phrase because we all understand it. On that point, again, it was your Lordships who very largely framed the provisions of the Regulations under which this compensation for disturbance should be paid. The clause arrived here from another place in a very different form from that in which it. Left.As your Lordships know, you very materially altered it.
I should like to ask your Lordships to consider whether you think, with the Amendments which you made to the Bill, that the Bill, as it left your Lordships House, is not fair to the landlord, and what the posit ion is of Lord Strachie, who apparently wants to get rid of this Part of the Bill. If I carry my memory back—and it is not so very many years ago—to the year 1906, when the noble Lord and myself were legislating in another place, I recollect that. The noble Lord was one of the advocates of compensation for disturbance. I admit that he was not the parent of the child, but he was a sort of godfather, or adoptive father, and time after time in another place, when we used to be fighting out this knotty point of compensation for disturbance, it was the noble Lord, as the mouthpiece of the Government, who brought forward the Bill and made it an Act of Parliament, providing that compensation could be paid to a tenant when he is unreasonably evicted. It is rather strange that now, legislating in another place, he should take exception to that proposition.
The actual position is this. In the Act of 1906, Which was afterwards incorporated in the Act of 1908, the question of compensation for disturbance was left in a very nebulous state indeed. The monies that were to be paid for losses sustained by reason of quitting a holding, and the occasions on which compensation was to be paid, were left in a very indefinite state; but during the passage of the Agriculture Bill through Parliament last year, and especially in your Lordships' House, your Lordships laid down certain definite rules. You laid it down that the compensation

133
Should be less than one year's rent, and should not exceed two years' rent. I believe that there are a large number of landowners and tenants who would prefer to see compensation for disturbance left in that plain and very definite way, rather than have it in the nebulous state in which it was left by the 1908 Act. I therefore think that it would be a mistake at the present moment for your Lordships to throw into the melting pot this question of compensation for disturbance. Your Lordships made a very important addition to the provision for disturbance. I rather think that you changed the law on that matter very considerably by stating that the landlord had power to give notice to his tenant if he was not cultivating his land according to the rules of good husbandry. That gives very considerable assistance to the landlord when he has a tenant who is farming badly, for he can turn him out and will not have to pay him compensation for disturbance. Both as regards the question of rent and the question of compensation for disturbance, your Lordships, after due and careful consideration, practically moulded the Bill according to your own wishes in these respects, and, if I may respectfully say so, I cannot help thinking that it would be a great mistake to go back on what was done on that Occasion.
There is only one other point of substance in Part II with which I need deal. This relates to the question of improvements which can be carried out by the tenant, with or without the consent of the landlord. As your Lordships are aware, the Ministry of Agriculture has power to issue Regulations or Orders stating that certain of these improvements can be moved from one schedule to another, but your Lordships perhaps acted very wisely during the Committee stage last year, when you retained to yourselves the power of vetoing these Orders issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. As the noble Lord himself knows, only a few months ago, at his instance, some Orders issued by the Ministry of Agriculture were revoked. Therefore, on all these three important points, I really do not think there is any very great charge to bring against the Government that by failing to repeal Part II of this Act they are making the Act into a very partial and lop-sided measure.
I may also make this appeal to noble Lords, that there can be no doubt, if the
134
noble Lord's Motion is carried, it will kill the, Bill. Moreover, it is perfectly certain, if your Lordships take that action, that the taxpayer will next year have to find a sum of probably £25,000,000. In fact it is quite possible, if the noble Lord's Motion is accepted, that during the next four years the taxpayers of the country may have to find a subsidy of no less a sum than £100,000,000. I therefore most respectfully urge upon your Lordships that you should consider well and hesitate before you vote for the noble Lord's Motion, which if think would be very disastrous to the taxpayers of the country. At the same time I do not think it would, to any large extent, alter or remove certain grievances which some landlords seem to think they have against His Majesty's Government the present time.
There is one noble Lord who, I hope and trust, will give me his support. It is only a few days ago that Lord Buckmaster, in this House, drew a most depressing and lurid picture of the state of Great Britain. He described it as almost a corpse, being slowly bled to death by the un- skilful operations of His Majesty's Ministers. He told us that taxation was bleeding the country to death. Here, at all events, we have followed the advice which he has so frequently given His Majesty's Government in the past, and are making some effort to bind up some of the wounds, and to stop that flow of blood. We sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will help us in that Endeavour. He told us that he was tired of giving advice, and that he almost despaired of ever getting His Majesty's Government to charge their policy in the matter of the expenditure of money. I can only say to the noble and learned Lord, and to other noble Lords who think with him—"Do not despair." Some of the seed which he has sown has fallen upon good ground, and it is only fit and proper that the first seed—the seed which he has sown—should germinate and bring forth a harvest of economy at the Ministry of Agriculture. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl, of Areaster.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading to move to resolve, "That this House refuses to assent to a partial and lopsided repeal of the Agriculture Act, 1920." The noble

135
Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl has anticipated the object of my Amendment. I base my proposal, that it is not desirable to have any partial or lop-sided treatment of this Bill, on what was said by a former Minister of Agriculture, who has since left the land and taken to the water. What did Lord Lee of Fareham say, in recommending the Agriculture Bill to your Lordships' House? He said this—
"Indeed I go further. I say it is not designed primarily as a measure of agricultural reform, but as an essential provision for national defence which is shown to be necessary as a result of the lessons of the war. This I will endeavour to make good to your Lordships."
I could give many other quotations, but.I will not do so.
I will, however, give.one quotation dealing with the question of the subsidy. What did Lord Lee of Fareham say with regard to this? He said—
"Some alarm has been expressed in certain quarters that these guarantees possibly may become effective, that the country may be called upon to pay them, and that thereby they will become a serious financial burden. If necessary that must he faced. Certainly these guarantees are not put into the Bill as mere camouflage which could under no circumstances ever cost the country anything. If so, they would be merely deluding the farmer into thinking that he could ever get assistance from them."
What declaration could be stronger by a-Minister and a member of the Cabinet? The Government did anticipate a heavy financial burden, and they were quite ready to face it.
The noble Earl has stated in his speech to-day that Part I of the Bill is only a small part of the measure. But what did Lord Lee of Fareham say as regards that? My own contention ware that, as originally introduced, it was an important part and that you could not destroy one part without destroying the rest. Lord Lee of Fareham said this—
"At the same time I must make it plain that, the scheme and the whole policy of the Bill rests upon three main legs. It may be possible slightly to lengthen or shorten them, but if any one of them is drastically cut so as to make the structure topple over, then obviously this Bill cannot survive."
What statement could be stronger than that? The noble Earl was not then in a position to judge on this matter and he is perfectly free to say that he entirely disagrees with Lord Lee. I do not think, however, that it is a sufficiently good answer for the Government, having made pledges, to say to the Minister that he
136
must leave, and that they are, therefore, free of those pledges and call reverse their declared policy.
I have quoted Lord Lee of Fareham. May I also quote to your Lordships what was said in another place on the Second Reading? The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, who has now succeeded as Minister of Agriculture, said—
"This Bill represents the definite reconstruction policy as regards agriculture of the Government, not as a temporary war measure, but as the permanent policy of the country."
The Act of 1920 was a compromise agreed to by the three classes interested in the land. But it was put forward to them as a question of national importance, and We have always found that landlords, farmers and labors, have been ready to subordinate their own particular interests to those of the country as a whole, when it was shown that it was necessary. The noble Earl has referred to the position of landowners under the Bill.
No doubt landowners did assent to more interference with the management of their estates, but as regards that point the noble Earl, speaking on the Second Reading of the. Bill, said—
"I ask you briefly to consider what in plain English are the main provisions of the Bill. How do they affect the landlord? The landlord under this Bill will be told what rent he is to receive; the landlord under this Bill will be told whom he is to evict; the landlord under this Bill will be told what repairs and improvements he is to execute."
We all know what a strong opponent of that Bill the noble Earl was. Not content with voting against the Second Reading, and making the best speech in your Lordships' House against it, he did not think the Amendments made in Committee improved it at all, and on the Third Reading went into the Division lobby against it, sawing that in his opinion the improvements were not worth the paper they were written on.
The noble Earl has referred to the control of cultivation by the agricultural committees, and says it was desirable that they should go. That was simply put in as a sort of makeweight, generally in the interests of good farming and good agriculture, and in order to assist landlords in the matter. I know a good many landlords who said that it was a great advantage to be able to go to these agricultural committees, whose duty it was to see that

137
The land was properly cultivated, instead of having to go to the tenant himself and making a complaint. The position of the semi-land courts is quite different now, when the subsidy is withdrawn, front what it was before. Undoubtedly, the subsidy did have an effect on a man who wished to sell a farm or to remain in a farm, and it made some difference in rent. The noble Earl speaking on the Bill as it affected landlords, said—
"There is also a very dangerous clause in this Bill, and one which I believe has never occurred in any system of nationalisation before. What does it say? It says that the owner of the property is not to be the judge of what are suitable repairs to his buildings or land; he is not to be the judge of what is an improvements to his property. A third party a Cover/intent agent, is to be the judge of what repairs are necessary and what improvements are to be carried oat, not at the nation's, expense, but at the man's expense whose land it nationalized I never heard of such a proposition."
I know he will say that in Committee it was provided that either House of Parliament could object to these Regulations. But I must remind him that the Government has twice attempted to put these provisions into force, and it is only because your Lordships rejected the Motion that they were thrown out. I can tell your Lordships that the Minister of Agriculture has actually said that it is their intention to bring them in again, and I have been told by the Minister of Agriculture himself that he would defeat me in your Lordships' House in the future. I admit that is plain speaking, but it is the fact.
I would like to refer to the position of the farmers. The farmers assented to the establishment of wages boards in return for the corn subsidy. There, again, I must quite the noble Earl. He said—
"The tenant under this Bill will be told what rent he has to pay; he will be told how he is to cultivate his land, and he will be told what wages he has to pay his labor."
The noble Earl objected strongly to these provisions of the Bill. With regard to the labors they assented to this Bill only because they had a wages board; otherwise, they would not have agreed to the interference with their hours of labour and their conditions of employment and wages.
Then, the noble Earl—I hope he is not tired of hearing the quote him, but he is so very effective in his criticism and brings these points home with greater force than I could do it myself—went on to say—
138
"The labourer is going to he told what wages he is to receive, and how many hours he shall work. Well, my Lords, it is pretty strong. When the noble Lord says, You should accept this Bill because you may get something worse,' I ant doubtful if you can get anything much worse."
I will now turn for the moment, to what the noble Earl said regarding compensation for disturbance. I am obliged to allude to that because the noble Earl who challenged me said I was responsible, as indeed I was, for the Act, of 1906, after it had left the Standing Committee in another place—and I am very glad I was responsible for it.
But there is a great difference between compensation under the Act of 1906 and compensation under this very advanced Bill. The difference is that in the former the compensation was only the cost of a removal and the tenant could only claim damages against his landlord if it could be shown that his action had been inconsistent with good estate management. If it were shown that the landlord had acted in a way that was inconsistent with good estate management, it was right that the landlord should have to pay something. He did not, however, have to pay one year's or two years' rent, but simply to compensate the tenant for any loss which he had to incur in moving. That seemed very fair and proper. The noble Earl seems to think that it is no advance at all, under present conditions, that a landlord may turn out a man and not only have to pay the whole cost of removal but to pay one year's or two years' rent. I cannot make out how the noble Earl can say that my measure is so extreme as the measure of which he now so strongly approves and which only last December he voted against.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I did not say I approved; I said it was with no great sorrow that I was here proposing the repeal.
LORD, STRACHIE: I have quoted enough, I think, to show the House that the noble Earl not only disliked Part I of the Act, but, that he 'would like to see the whole Act destroyed. There is one other point with which I desire to deal, because it is exercising the minds of agriculturists very much at present. I refer, of course, to the wages boards which the noble. Earl seemed to think would occupy a very large part of the discussion of this Bill in Committee. What happened on the Third

139
Reading of the Agriculture Bill in another place? The Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Agriculture, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, said—
"We have made the wager hoard permanent. The wages hoard is not a popular body with farmers, but in my opinion it has done most excellent work."
I give that quotation because I think I can show your Lordships later on that Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen has entirely altered his views upon this matter. What was the position of this Bill when it was introduced into another place, and until after it had passed its Second Reading? As far as wages boards were concerned the Bill was entirely a voluntary measure merely providing that conciliation boards were to be set up. But after it left the Standing Committee, on Report, compulsion was introduced into the Bill. The existing wages boards are to remain for two years or; as the noble Earl has told us, until other bodies are set up. I think the noble Earl might have explained to us a little more fully how these bodies are going to be set up. If, at the end of two years, nothing is done, of course I agree that then there can be no wages boards at all; but why introduce into an Act of Parliament something that may be sterile and abortive from the very beginning?
I think the noble Earl will recognize that so far as the National Farmers' Union are concerned, they will not approach this question of wages hoards in any but a hostile spirit. What did the National Farmers' Union do at their council meeting on July 20? They unanimously passed this resolution—
"That That this Council reminds his Majesty's Government and the Agricultural Committee of the House of Coin nuns of the promise to farmers of complete economic freedom in the event of the withdrawal of the guarantees provided under Part I of the Agriculture Act and demands its fulfillment both in the letter and in the spirit. The Council further sees no reason to exclude England and Wales from the freedom proposed to be granted to Scotland in this connection."
It is very remarkable that this Bill has been so altered in Committee and Report, so far as Scotland is concerned, and that Scotland should have been put hack into exactly the position of freedom that England had before the Bill went through the Standing Committee. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Chamber of Agriculture in Scotland demanded that they should have freedom to deal with this matter. I know it may be
140
said by the noble Earl that in Scotland the farmers were unanimous, and that the Agricultural Labourers' Union did not dissent. But I cannot see why there should be this difference between Scotland and England.
Another thing that we have not been told by the noble Earl is how these wages boards are to be selected. All the indications given in the House of Commons were that the wages boards were to be selected by the employers from the National Farmers' Union, and, of course, on behalf of the workers, from the National Agricultural Labourers' Union and from the Workers' Union. I would point out to the noble Earl, who is always ready to say that he looks after the protection of landowners, that that does not seem very fair from the point of view of the landlord. No landlords are to have anything to do with these bodies, if the National Farmers' Union is to be allowed to have a say in the matter. Although at one time men who were not members of the National Farmers' Union sat upon these wages boards, later, upon representations by the National Farmers' Union those who were not members of that Union were turned off the wages boards, and their places were taken by members of the Union. I want to know if this is the way in which the business is to be done in the future. If the National Farmers' Union is to represent the employers, it seems to me to be a very unfair arrangement, because there are a very large number of landowners, and, no doubt, in the future, with the increasing numbers who will have. to farm their own land, there will be many more, who ought to be properly represented on the wages board. I cannot see why the landlord should be left entirely in the cold in this matter. I cannot see why there should be no consultation with such a body as the Central Chamber of Agriculture, or with the Central Landowners' Association, It seems only fair and proper that they should have some say in the matter of setting up these boards.
I also notice that there is no limit as to the time in which a decision setting up a rate of wages given by the wages hoard is to hold good after it has received the sanction of the Minister of Agriculture. It is conceivable that you might have a wages board which would agree upon a rate of wages this month, and that three or four months afterwards, although con-

141
ditions might entirely change, the rate of wastes could not be altered, once it had been laid down, until the Board agreed, and it may be very difficult to get the hoard to agree. I cannot see why you want to have arty compulsion at all in tins matter. I should like Io quote what was said upon the introduction of this Bill. I would remind noble Lords that when this Bill MIS introduced, the intention of the Cabinet and the Government, who had no doubt thoroughly considered tins question, was that there should be no compulsion. There was the same section which now will apply only to Scotland, a very proper section if I may say so, saying that, conciliation boards ought to be set up, as far as possible, entirely of a voluntary nature.
What did Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen say of this Bill? He said—
"The Prime Minister in first introducing the policy in February, 1917, said: Before I come to actual prices which we guarantee I was going to say that there are ten or three corollaries to a guarantee of prices. The first is that if the Government guarantees prices labor must also be guaranteed.' "
Sir Arthur, commenting on this, went on to say—
''That is to say, that if there are to be guaranteed prices, then and only then is there to be a wages board"
The Government have absolutely gone away front that proposition, and have simply contradicted what was said by Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen. He said—
"We propose that there shall not be a guarantee of prices, if so it follows clearly from that that the wages board shall disappear at the same time."
Then, I have stronger arguments against the wages board which are given me by Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen upon this Bill. He said—
"The wages board was intended to mix minimum wages. In practice… it has fixed standard wages, rigid standard wages, applicable to all alike without any regard to questions of fitness or skill. That has had a fatal effect. The minimum wages are actually maximum but in addition the question of hours is introduced. When minimum wages become standard wages, you introduce the whole machinery of rigid factory hours on the farm. That is exactly what has happened."
The noble Earl must know that that is a question about which the farmers feel very strongly. The effect 4on the wages hoard has been to introduce these rigid
142
factory hours to the great harm and great detriment of agriculture in this country.
One other quotation, and this shall be the last. On this Bill, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen said—
"I am certain that one effect of the wages board has been the introduction of rigid hours which are quite unsuitable to farming. There is another point. The wages board is coercive. It relies on prosecutions.…You rely on coercion, inspection, espionage and police court prosecutions. If there is anything which is wanted in this country both in the factory and on the farm, it is good will, and you will never get good will on the farm so long as you rely upon coercion."
What stronger words can be used to condemn the wages hoard in this Bill? Undoubtedly, whatever the noble Earl says, there is compulsion in this Bill. Representatives of the employers and the employed meet together and pass certain rates of wages. Those rates of wages, if confirmed by the Minister, will then become compulsory upon the whole of the area for which that body is constituted. But how are you going to select the employers? They are to be selected by the different organizations, and only at the request of the Minister. The Minister may request anybody he likes, because he does not put into the Bill that the National Farmers' Union or the Central Chamber of Agriculture should be responsible to the landlord. He has a right to elect any self-constituted body he pleases. They may agree with the workmen upon a rate of wages with which the majority of the people totally disagree, and if he sanctioned that agreement those wages, passed by the minority of the people in the district, would be compulsory upon the whole majority in that area.
What we want to see is the Bill as originally introduced, where it gave perfect freedom of contracts between employers and employed. Why should there not be once more a return to conciliation boards which, I am quite sure, the noble Earl would much prefer? There is one thing upon which farmers are agreed that is that conciliation boards, if formed should be entirely voluntary, with no compulsion whatever, and that there should be no interference by the Government, with power to alter their decisions or to make them compulsory in any way. There must be give-and-take in this matter both for employers and employed. The Government made an awful mess in deal-

143
ing with the coal trade in fixing wages. They brought this country almost to bankruptcy. The noble Earl has said that if it had not been for the coal strike and the difficulties arising therefrom, we should not have had this Act repealed. I notice Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen said exactly the same thing in another place, so that evidently there is the full sanction of the Ministry of Agriculture upon this matter.
What we want to see is no Government interference, but collective bargaining by employers and employed. That is the proper way to do it, and much the most sensible way. Wages and hours of labour must and can be only what any industry can bear. The Government in the past have shown by their reckless interference in the coal trade what lamentable results happened. On the other hand, we have seen what happened in the case of the railways where they had conciliation hoards without Government interference. Those voluntary boards have produced peace and contentment, and wages have actually been reduced without any objection whatever. Those are the reasons why I say this Bill is not desirable, and why I say it is partial and lop-sided. It interferes with a measure which was introduced in the interests of the nation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("this House refuses to assent to a partial and 1op-sided repeal of the Agriculture Act, 1920").—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, as one of the most strenuous supporters in this House of the Corn Production Acts of 1917 and 1920, I cannot let this occasion pass without entering my strong protest against the repeal of their principal provisions, including the most important portions of the Act which we passed here less than a year ago. It would be elaborating the obvious to dwell on the extraordinary character of the whole procedure which the noble Lord who has just spoken has already sufficiently emphasized, on the phenomenal change of mind by which the very authors and principal supporters of the measure, passed here not much more than six months ago, have now become its executioners.
For my own part, I have been unable to undergo a similar remarkable process of conversion. To my mind, the reasons which seemed so strong in favour of the
144
Corn Production Act of last year, appear even stronger to-day. Having counted the cost from the outside, and having made up my mind that the magnitude of the object justified the cost, I cannot go back upon myself, because the contingency which this Act was always intended to provide against, and which was always foreseen as a possibility, has actually arisen. I can only suppose that those who find it so easy to go back upon themselves in the matter can only have believed, when they assented to the guarantees, that they were never going to be called-upon to implement them.
The noble Lord who has just spoken has dwelt with considerable force upon the injustice which the repeal of so large a portion of the Act of last year, while leaving the remainder intact, may inflict, upon the landowner and farmer. I think an equally strong case could be made out for the plight in which the sudden reversal of our policy is going to leave the agricultural labourer. But, strongly as I sympathise with all classes interested in the cultivation of land, it is not principally on their account that I deplore the reversal of the agricultural policy of the last few years. What counts with me most is the interest of the nation as a whole, including that urban majority which, although unfortunately it is so indifferent to the fate of agriculture, is nevertheless going to be so deeply affected in its own highest interests by any injury inflicted upon what, after all, is our most fundamental industry.
The grounds on which this extraordinary volte face is justified are mainly two. It is said that we cannot afford to pay the money which the maintenance of the present law would involve. That was the ground on which the noble Earl, introduced the measure to-night, principally relied. There is another argument also, which has been less stressed here to-day, but which certainly has had a good deal of effect in another place and which I have seen dwelt upon considerably by many exponents of public opinion, and that is that the attempt to direct the conduct of agriculture in the interests of the community was a mistaken attempt; that we should do better to leave the industry entirely alone, to leave the farmer to sink or swim as he can, handling the land, as he, must do in that case, solely with an eve to what he believes to be his own immediate personal advantage. Per-

145
sonally, I think that both these arguments are bad. I deplore equally the abandonment, of the guarantees and the extinction of the agricultural committees, which, so far as my experience goes, have had a valuable effect in raising the general standard of agriculture.
On the point of economy, I very greatly doubt whether the saving, even from the narrowest point of view, the purely Exchequer point of view, is going to be anything like so great as many people suppose. In the present economic chaos prevailing throughout the whole world, I absolutely defy anybody to say what the course of corn prices is likely to be in the next three or four years. It may perfectly well be that after having given a blow to the cultivation of corn in this country, which will deprive us of a. considerable amount of our home-grown supplies, we shall have to pay such a price for imported corn as would have made any guarantee, if maintained, a light burden, or no burden at all. The extent of that burden in future years is absolutely problematical, but the blow which this sudden reversal of policy is going to give to agriculture in this country is nothing problematical—it is a certainty, and it may well be irreparable. What is certain is that in face of the total uncertainty as to the course of prices throughout the world in the next few years, the farmer, left entirely to himself, will and must play for safety; that less and less capital will be put into the land; and that instead of our having more arable land, a good deal of land that is now arable will tumble down again to grass, and to bad grass at that; that instead of having more production from the soil in this country we shall have less production; and that we shall have to import increased quantities of food from foreign countries, and the enormous bill which we shall have to pay for that importation will become heavier and heavier every year.
We have had many debates in this House about waste. There is no form of waste that I know of at all comparable, in its evil effects, to the waste of our own natural resources. Going up and down England, to-day, a man must be blind who is not struck, as every competent foreign observer invariably is struck, by the poor use which we make of so much of our land. It seems to me absolutely inevitable that, a consequence of what we are now doing,
146
the amount of land which is poorly farmed or not farmed at all will considerably increase. I may say that I have always held, and still hold with ever-growing conviction, that apart entirely from all the other considerations affecting the case—considerations of national security, of national health, and the maintenance of a. large and vigorous agricultural population—it would, on pure grounds of national economy, pay this country well to devote, a good many millions to the raising of a general standard of agriculture.
"A general standard" I say advisedly, because it would be unjust to ignore what many individuals have done and are doing, with little encouragement, in spite of the enormous burdens which agriculture has to bear, to cultivate the land with an eye to the maximum of production in the interests of the community. But you cannot expect the majority of men struggling for an existence from the land, to do that. With no pressure upon them to farm better, and no inducement offered to them to farm better, they will be bound increasingly, faced by the burdens resting upon them, to farm low, to spend as little as possible upon labour or anything else, in order to get a small but at any rate a safe return. That may be the right, or it may be the only possible, course for the individual, but it can never be to the advantage of the nation, which has so vital an interest in getting the maximum production from its own soil.
I must say it seems to me extraordinary that the necessity of increasing, by every means in our power, the productivity of the soil of this country, seems to be treated as a secondary consideration. It is to my mind a primary consideration, the greatest of all considerations, from the point of view of our present economic and financial position, and we need protection in this country to-day far more than we have done in the immediate past. Our manufactures no longer hold that commanding position which they once held in all the markets of the world. It is evident to everybody who looks at the course of the exchanges only that we have an increasing difficulty in paying by our products for all that we are obliged to buy. When there is so much that we must buy from foreign countries in the shape of raw materials—because we cannot, by any human possibility, produce it here ourselves, it being against the course of nature—surely it is the height of im-

147
providence to weight the scale against us in international barter by also neglecting to produce here, thereby increasing the amount which we are compelled to import from foreign countries.
It may seem at first sight a very simple way of saving money to strike off so many millions which might have to be paid under this guarantee for the maintenance of our agriculture, but let us consider the hidden waste which may be lying behind that apparent gain. One effect of it will be—a certain effect, by increasing the amount which we have to pay to foreign countries, and especially to America to depreciate the dollar value of the £, and thereby to add, year by year, enormously to the cost of everything that we have to buy from America—cotton, every bit as much as corn. Besides that there is the increase—a matter of no small consideration—of the immense burden of our indebtedness to that country. That is one effect of a loss of productivity in the soil of this country. Another is the depreciation in the value of land, which, in a few years, may very well affect the Exchequer, and affect it more permanently for evil than a considerable expenditure in the next few years, resulting in a restoration of British agriculture to its former productive position, could possibly do. I venture to predict that we shall pay dearly for the millions we think we are going to save.
And I should like to ask: What are we going to do with the thousands of men—who may very easily be a couple of hundred thousand in a few years—whom the policy of never minding if the land does tumble down to grass is going to throw out of employment? We have two million unemployed in this country already. What are we going to do with this additional number? It is quite true that we may reasonably hope that the revival of trade will gradually absorb a considerable proportion of those at present unemployed. But can any reasonable Man be sanguine enough to think that within any measurable time it will absorb them all? There will be no room in this country for the displaced agricultural labourer, unless indeed, as is very likely, he displaces someone else. In any case, these unemployed, whether displaced agricultural labourers or others displaced by them, will have to be maintained by the country, for all your economy. And what is the ridiculous position that will be reached? That, not haying been
148
able to afford to help the farmer to keep these people employed, producing something, you are going to have to maintain them, all the same, producing nothing. More doles for the unemployed—the most lamentable form of waste in the name of economy.
So much for the purely agricultural side of the matter. May I, in conclusion, very briefly say one word on another aspect, not less grave? I had hoped that one of the lessons of the war—it is true we seem rapidly forgetting all its lessons—had been to teach us the true position of agriculture in the life of a. nation. I had hoped that we had learnt that it was something more than just one kind of business by which people might make a living, and that it was something absolutely vital and essential to the life of the State that the people engaged in it, whether landowners, or farmers, or labourers, must be regarded as engaged in a form of national service. It is true that this can be said in some measure of every great staple industry. Every great staple industry ought so to be regarded, but none is so vital or so fundamental as agriculture. I had hoped that we had learned that, whilst the men engaged in agriculture owed a special duty to the community, on the other hand they Were entitled to special consideration in return for the faithful discharge of that duty; that if, on the one hand, they might be pressed to conduct their industry on lines which might not appear to them to be most immediately profitable, but which were regarded as the most advantageous to the community, on the other hand, they were entitled to be protected from being ruined in the process.
That is the true conception, as I think, of the position of agriculture in the national life. It is a. measure, imperfect no doubt, but still not by any means wholly inefficient, embodying that true principle, which is now being ruthlessly scrapped. I believe that we shall have to return to it. I believe that we are marching straight to such a crisis in our agricultural industry, and that we shall be forced once more to turn aside from the individualist go-as-you-please doctrine, which is at present sweeping before it, and has carried the Government off its feet. I believe that we shall have once more, and before very long, to engage in special measures for the preservation of the most fundamental of our industries. But how much may be lost in the interval,

149
and how much it may cost us to bring the land, which is now going to depreciate once more, to its full productive use, is more than any man can say.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move the adjournment of this debate till Thursday next. There are many members of your Lordships' House still desirous of speaking on tie Second Reading, and we have not vet reached a stars; of business which makes it imperative for us to take the Committee stage of this Bill next Thursday. Therefore, I hope the Government will agree that the proposition is a reasonable one.
Moved, That time debate be now adjourned till Thursday nest.—(The Marl of Selborne.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I confess I should be sorry if that Motion were pressed. May I remind your Lordships of this? We desired to put the Bill down for Second Reading last week, but at the request of many noble Lords opposite it was postponed until to-day. In postponing it my noble friend, Lord Ancaster, said that he hoped the Second Reading would be given on Tuesday because, our proposal being to take the Committee stage on Thursday—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You have lots of time.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD:—our proposal being to take the Committee stage on Thursday, he naturally desired to see as many Amendments as possible upon the Notice Paper. Having deferred to your Lordships' desires on Thursday afternoon last, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, asked that the Motion about in autumn session should again take precedence. We agreed, and the result is that we now reach a rather inconvenient moment in a very important Bill. If the Bill is postponed until Thursday, I am afraid the Committee stage must be postponed until next week. It is rumoured in the House, with what truth I do not know, that the projected debate oft Ireland to-morrow may be postponed. If that is so, would it not be better for your Lordships to finish the Second Reading of this Bill to-morrow, so that we could go on with the Committee stage on Thursday?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not mind that. It depends, of course, upon what is on the Order Paper for to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the Irish debate is not taken, there is very little on the Order Paper for to-morrow. The Earl of Arran's Question about compensation for destruction of property in Ireland is postponed, I understand. Lord Newton has a Question about the Inter-Allied 'Military Commission which, he informs me, is not likely to take more than a few moments. Lord Dawson of Penn has a Motion on an interesting technical subject which, however, I do not think is likely to last very long. That is all there is on the Paper for to-morrow, apart front the Irish question and the stages of the Finance Bill.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Several noble Lords wish to speak on Lord Dawson of Penn's Motion.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I merely repeat that it would be much more convenient, in my opinion, if we could take the concluding stages of the Second Reacting of this Bill to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I may take this opportunity of saying that in pursuance of an invitation which I threw out last week, when. I gave Notice of the debate about Ireland, to noble Lords sitting in all quarters of the House to make any representations they might wish to make to me in reference to that debate, I have received many representations, and it has been thought better that I should postpone the Irish debate which was down for to-morrow. I do so all the more readily because I shall have an opportunity within a very few hours of conferring on the subject with many of my political friends. In those circumstances, the Irish debate will not stand in the way of any arrangement which the noble Earl may make as regards the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it is only right to say that I happen to know that Lord Dawson lays great store upon his Motion, and it would not be fair, in his absence, if we assumed that it is not a substantial matter. I do not know how long it will take. I think perhaps I would suggest that the House might meet a little earlier to-morrow. I imagine that Lord Dawson's Motion will not take very

151
long, and, at any rate, one may hope there will be time left to conclude this stage of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill.
Motion to adjourn the debate till Thursday, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned till to-morrow.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Normally, we meet at a quarter to four o'clock tomorrow. I do not think it is much good meeting a quarter of an hour earlier.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Earl is right, and that the House should meet at the usual time to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Dawson has informed my noble friend, Lord Onslow, that he does not mean to move his Motion to-morrow.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Lord Dawson told me a short time ago—an hour ago—that he intended to move it, and he urged me to be here.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have just had a conversation with Lord Dawson, and I understood from him that he intended to withdraw his Motion to-morrow for certain reasons. He has only just left the House; I think it was about ten minutes ago. He explained to me that certain noble Lords had promised to be here. Unfortunately, he is not here now, but I think I am correct in saying that the debate will not take place.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned till to-morrow accordingly.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

UNION OF BENEFICES MEASURE, 1921.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move, "That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House
152
do direct that the Union of Benefices Measure, 1921, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent." His Grace said: My Lords, the object of my Motion is to obtain the Royal Assent to a Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, asking for the prolongation for two years of the existing Act for the union of benefices, which comes to an end at the close of the present year. The point of the matter is that the subject is now being considered afresh by the National Assembly. The National Assembly Committee wants time for elaborating certain proposed changes in the Act, and in order to do that they must ask for the postponement of the termination of the existing Act, which would otherwise take place automatically at the end of this year. The Ecclesiastical Committee of your Lordships' House has agreed to report that the Measure amending the Act should now be placed before the House for the Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Union of Benefices Measure, 1921, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. (The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I de not propose to take a Division upon this Question, but I wish to call the attention of the House to the assurances given to us that this Measure does not contravene the undertaking given when the Church of England Assembly Act was passed, that nothing should be done to interfere with the civil rights of any of His Majesty's subjects I have before me a Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee to which the most rev Primate has referred, and in the last paragraph they say that they consider that—
"Inasmuch as the only effect of the measure it to prolong for a period the operation of the existing Act of Parliament, the present position in relation to the constitutional rights of His Majesty': subjects remains unaltered."
That is a proposition which I entirely challenge. The Union of Benefices Act is not an Act to carry out a mere ecclesiastical arrangement. It is an Act whirl interferes with an absolute civil right, the right of patrons. I am not concerne whether it is right or wrong, but Parliament, as a matter of fact, has taken away

153
certain rights of patrons up to a date in 1921, and the object of this proposal is to extend that interference with their civil right for two years more. Whether it is right or wrong it is clearly an interference with civil rights which we were assured should not be interfered with under this Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act.
LORD PHILLIMORE: No, no.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I comment upon this because this is not the first time the civil rights of the people of this country have been interfered with by action promoted by the new Church Council. The right of appointing Churchwardens was pre-eminently a right vested in all the ratepayers of the parish. A sort of compromise was arrived at in this Church body. First of all, they wanted to turn over the appointment of churchwardens entirely to the parish councils, but, as a compromise, they said: "Let us unite the parish council with the vestry, and let the joint body vote." That was a clear interference with the civil rights of the parishioners, as parishioners, and not as members of the Church of England. However, that was passed by this Ecclesiastical Committee which was supposed to safeguard the civil rights of the public, and now we have this instance, in which they extend for two years an interference with the civil rights of patrons, and tell us that it does not matter because it is only an extension of what was done by Act of Parliament. It is true it was done by an Act of Parliament, but if you want to extend a civil Act of Parliament you ought to extend it by another civil Act of Parliament, and not by this machinery. I have made my protest, and I shall not divide.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I merely want to ask, purely as a matter of curiosity, "Why is not this an interference with civil rights?" I notice that the statement of the noble Lord that it did constitute such an interference was received with something like derision opposite.
LORD PHILLIMORE: No, it was a mistake. The protest was for a quite different reason to that indicated by the noble and learned Lord.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Then I imagine it will be accepted that it is a fact that this is an interference with a civil right—a civil right which may not be popular, but which undoubtedly exists. I am a little astonished to find that this Committee should have reported that no interference is effected when, in fact, you are, in the result, going to create for a new period of two years what is a distinct interference with a right which, whether it ought to exist or riot, is in fact existing and is protected by the law.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My noble and learned friend a little misunderstood the nature of the opposition that.I expressed to the noble Lord opposite. It is a mistake to say that legislation by the Church Assembly under the Assembly Act, is not to interfere with the civil rights of His Majesty's subjects. It must interfere, and does interfere for a time. What the Committee have a duty to do is to report whether or not it does interfere with the constitutional rights of any of His Majesty's subjects. It may interfere, but Parliament is to be told if it does interfere.
LORD BUCKMASTER: They say it does not.
LORD PHILLIMORE: That is, I think, a mistake in the Report—a very slight mistake. I was going to explain that I think it is a very slight and immaterial mistake in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. In a sense it does interfere, but the very legislation contemplates that the Church Assembly may prolong an Act of Parliament, and this is only prolonging an Act of Parliament.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I beg to remind your Lordships that, the Judicial sittings having concluded, unless your Lordships otherwise determine, the meetings of the House will be at 3.45 p.m. for the remainder of the sittings.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

Preamble
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHEFFIELD EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BARNSLEY EXTENSION) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 28th of July lust discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WAR PENSIONS BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.
TERRITORIAL ARMY AND MILITIA BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (STOKE-ON-TRENT EXTENSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
PETERHEAD HARBOURS ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a(The Lord Stanmore), and reported front the Committee.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME EX TENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
Returned front the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (OSSETT AND WAKEFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTHEND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aberavon and Neath Extension).
Manchester (Police, etc.) Provisional Order.
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 5).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.