Sitting of 4 August 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which appears on the Paper in reference to this Bill. The Bill contains several Amendments which have all been settled by agreement.
Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHEFFIELD EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE In the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Repeal of Corn Production Acts.
1. The Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920, are hereby repealed as from the first day of October, nineteen hundred arid twenty-one:
Provided that, without prejudice to the general application of section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, with regard to the effect of repeals—

(a) This repeal shall not prejudice or affect the power to take any proceedings in relation to payments in respect of the wheat and oats of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one or such of the powers mentioned in section nine of the Agriculture Act, 1920, as are excepted from the operation of that section;

(b) Where on the thirtieth clay of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, any legal proceedings are pending in England and Wales to which the
212
Agricultural Wages Board or a district wages committee are parties, the: Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be substituted in those proceedings for the Board or committee, as the case may, he, and the proceedings shall not abate by reason of the substitution; and

(c) The body of persons constituted with respect to any area by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917, shall, notwithstanding this repeal, continue to exercise the powers and duties of the Agricultural Committees for that area under the Agriculture Act, 1920, unless and until the Board of Agriculture for Scotland by order direct that such powers and duties shall be exercised by the Board, which direction they are hereby authorised and empowered to give, and the Board shall thereafter have power to constitute an agricultural committee for that area.

THE EARL OF MAIMESBURY THE EARL OF MAIMESBURY moved, at the beginning of the clause, alter "The Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920," to insert" and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3), of Section 36 of the Agriculture Act, 1920." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which stands in my name is a somewhat complicated one, and I am afraid it is of a very technical character. I should have been very glad if it had been moved by some noble and learned Lord, instead of by my-self. It is important, before I deal with this Amendment, that I should outline in a few sentences the history of the control over agriculture. This began, as your Lordships are aware, with the Act commonly known as the Defence of the Realm Act Then came the Corn Production Act, 1917, Part IV. The 1917 Act was to have come into force in August, 1918, or at the end of the war, whichever happened first, and then "D.O.R.A." would cease. Then came the Corn Production Act, 1918, and that Act said that"D.O.R.A.'' should go on until the end of the war. Last year we passed the Agriculture Act, which it is now proposed in part to repeal, and that was to come into force, I think, on January 1, 1921. It said that "D.O.R.A." should cease and that Part IV of the Corn Production Act, 1917, should conic into operation, so far as it was amended by the Act of 1920.
By the Act of 1920, the Corn Production Act, 1917, which had been suspended by the Act of 1918, was revived; but to-day, even after this Bill has become law, as I

213
understand this extremely complicated matter, "D.O.R..A." will still survive in some shape or form. It seems to me, so far as I have been able to follow the various Acts of Parliament which have been repealed, amended, suspended, and so on, during the last few years, that if paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of Section 36 of the Agriculture Act, 1920, are not repealed, Orders issued by the Government for the control of cultivation are kept alive; and yet I think it is generally supposed in this country at the present time that by this Repeal Bill the Government are more or less abandoning all control over agriculture. I think it is fairly clear that, under this Bill, the Government will be unable to make any new Order for possession, though Orders for cultivation may go on. If, for instance, an Order has been made that a man should keep one hundred head of sheep—I do not say that such an Order has been made—so far as I know, there is nothing to prevent his having to keep it for ever. There is no legal determination of these Orders.
It is impossible, of course, unless one follows the various Acts and compares one with another, for your Lordships to understand what I mean, but in Section 9 of Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1920, which we are now repealing, there is a provision which more or less abolishes Government control. But at the end of the Act which Bill this seeks to repeal, in Section 36, there are a number of provisos. Those provisos still continue Government control in various forms, whereas in Section 9 of the principal Act, as we may call it, this Government control is repealed. What we should like to know, I think, is what paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of Section 36 really mean. I cannot say how much land the Government control now, nor how much land local authorities are occupying as a rent It of these various Acts, but one thing is clear, and that is that the Government is very sufficiently protected under au Act which I will not attempt to explain—namely, the Interpretation Act of 1889. They are protected for what they have done so long as these Orders are in existence.
The object in getting all control removed is, first of all, that owners may know exactly where they are if they want to recover possession of their land for their own purposes, and secondly for the purpose of sale. I do not know whether the noble Earl
214
will be able to tell us whether these two paragraphs really retain a control by the Government over agriculture, and, if they do not., what I hey actually mean. It limy be said that this repeal does not deal with the Act of 1917, and perhaps I am somewhat out of order in moving at this point, but if you look at the Title you will see that this Bill repeals the Act of 1917 and part of the Act of 1920. I will not detain your Lordships longer on what is but extremely dry subject, but it scents to me that if the Government had repealed the Act of 1920 in toto, and amended the Agricultural holdings Act of 1908, we should have found He Statutes dealing with this subject very much more simple. I hope that the noble Earl will give us an assurance so that we may know exactly where we stand with regard to these two paragraphs.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after ("1920") insert ("and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of section 36 of the Agriculture Act, 1020")—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): The noble Earl, in moving the Amendment, rightly said that it was a somewhat technical and legal question, but, as I am informed, the Amendment is unnecessary. The paragraphs referred to have for effect the repeal of certain provisions in the Corn Production Act of 1917, and the repeal now proposed of the rest of the provisions of that Act does not alter the position. All notices served or Orders made under the repealed Acts will, as from October 1, cease to operate, except to the very limited extent to which they are preserved by Section 38 of the Interpretation Act, which preserves all existing rights and liabilities in respect of notices pending on that date. I think the Amendment is unnecessary, and I hope the noble Earl will not press it.
LORD PARMOOR: I understand, with reference to what has been said by the noble Earl opposite, that all that this does is to make provision that rights accrued already are protected, and nothing more than that. I think, if that is so, the Amendment is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes, that is the effect.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I do not desire to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but may I ask that between now and the Report stage the noble Earl will look into the matter a little further?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think I can satisfy the noble Earl between now and the Report stage.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SALTOUN,who had on the Paper Amendments in proviso (c), said: Since I put down my Amendments I have had an opportunity of an interview with the Secretary for Scotland. He is prepared to accede to the principle of my Amendments, but he wants a little further time in order to look into certain minor matters. With your Lordships' permission, I will postpone my Amendments until the Report stage.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord does not move his Amendment?
LORD SALTOUN: No.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, after proviso (c) to insert the following new paragraph—
"(d) This repeal shall not prejudice the powers of the Minister for dealing with injurious weeds under section 4, subsection (10) of the Agriculture Act, 1920."
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are aware, Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1920, is repealed in this Bill. In Part I there is a very important provision giving the Minister of Agriculture full powers to deal with noxious weeds on any land, especially I have in mind those growing on railway and other banks, or alongside roads. The object of my Amendment is to keep in the hands of the Minister these powers to deal with injurious weeds, and I hope that I have the whole of your Lordships with me in my desire that noxious weeds should be dealt with.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, at end insert the said new paragraph—(Lord Dynevor.)
LORD CLINTON: When the noble Earl answers I hope he will be able to inform the Committee whether this Amendment will have the effect not only of giving the Minister power to destroy noxious weeds on railway banks, etc., but also of giving him the power to go on to land and see
216
that the cultivation of the land is kept clean. I think it is a good power for him to have, but I am not clear whether the Amendment gives film that power.
LORD BLEDISLOE: May I also ask whether, in the event of the Minister exercising his powers under subsection (10) of Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, his powers will in fact he exercised by delegation through the county agricultural committees?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The two last speeches I think rather show that the acceptance of the Amendment is not so easy as we could desire. I should also, if the noble Lord behind me (Lord Clinton) will excuse me, like to bring to his notice a large area of land under the Forestry Commission, which I think is more covered with thistles than any land that I have seen for some time past. Dealing with the Amendment, I may say at once that I have every sympathy with it, and I should very much like to accept it, but there are difficulties in the way. It is no doubt very important that injurious weeds should be dealt with, but I do not think this is a very convenient way of dealing with the matter. I have gone very carefully into the question, and I find it will be necessary to keep in force, or re-enact, the whole or part of ten Sections of these Acts. I have therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that this would not be a practical or convenient method of dealing with the question of weeds. I think the best course would be to introduce a Bill dealing with the question next session.
I may add that it is, perhaps, rather unfortunate, but I believe the question of weeds was included in a Bill before Parliament dealing with seeds, and the clauses dealing with weeds were withdrawn from the Seeds Bill owing to the prospect of passing the Agriculture Bill. As matters turned out, it was unfortunate that those clauses were not proceeded with in the Seeds Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied that this is not an easy matter, but is in fact a difficult one, in view of the many Amendments that would be required to deal with the subject on this Bill, and I hope noble Lords will be satisfied with the assurance of the Ministry of Agriculture that, if possible, a Bill will be introduced for dealing with the subject next session.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEI hope that this is not really the last word of the Government. I believe I am right in stating that this is the only civilised country in the world where there is no law dealing with the spread of noxious weeds through the neglect of someone or other; and a bird in the hand is worth two in the hush. What is the value of a promise of a small measure next session? We know the good intentions of the Minister of Agriculture, and we also know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have too 'ouch experience to trust to that if we can possibly get the matter dealt with in this Bill. All that the Government have to do is, with the aid of their expert and experienced draftsmen, to find the best place in this Bill to deal with the subject. If they can do that I believe they will have the support of this House and of the other House. I would very strongly press my noble friend to promise to bring up a clause on the Report stage to give effect to this proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I enforce the appeal which my noble friend has made? The next session, as we understand, is to be devoted, in the main, to schemes for reforming your Lordships' House, and it appears to me that to complicate that difficult subject with an attempt to deal with agricultural weeds wonted be, in itself, highly unfortunate. I trust, therefore, that the appeal of my noble friend may be acceded to, and that before the Report stage the noble Earl will consider whether it is not possible to include in this absolutely relevant measure some provision dealing with weeds.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I can only repeat that the matter is a difficult one. With a little practical experience of my own on an executive committee I know that when you desire to get weeds cut, very often by the time action is taken the weeds have seeded and blown all over the place. If you are going to deal with this there is no doubt you will throw a certain amount of work on the county land agents. There will be the old story of running about in motor-cars to inspect the different places where the weeds are growing, and all the paraphernalia to be gone through of issuing Orders. I do not recollect at the moment what the powers of an executive committee are, but I think they first of all have to issue an Order,
218
then, if the Order is not carried out, the man is fined £20, or for every day of delay in cutting the weeds. I rather believe that in the last resort there is power under the Agriculture Act for the committee to cut the weeds themselves. As I have said, all that is rather a lengthy procedure. In the meantime, the weeds have seeded and probably the mischief has been done. We are now in the month of August, and this Bill comes into force on October 1, and fortunately the only good thing about the winters in this country is that weeds do not grow very luxuriantly during the winter months.
Even with the very heavy business of reforming your Lordships' House before us, the small Bill which I have spoken of ought not to occupy a very great amount of time. Perhaps in a new Bill a more efficacious way of tackling the pest of injurious weeds might be discovered than could be done by the cumbrous methods provided under the Agriculture Act. If assented to the Amendment it would mean not only inserting these few words, but leaving a good deal of the paraphernalia of inspectors and motor-car journeys, which was one of the chief objections to the executive committees and time control of agriculture. I shall be very pleased to reconsider the matter, but it is not a very convenient way of dealing with the question, and I really think the course I suggested would be both' more convenient and, probably, more efficacious.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend does not seem to me to be very enthusiastic on tins subject. The question is not so complicated as he would make out. What we suggest to him is to put a new clause or subsection into the Bill dealing with the matter de novo as best advised by his legal advisers. The last thing we want is for the Ministry of Agriculture to be sending these inspectors about to see whether there are weeds. What we desire is that the agricultural committees in the counties should have the power to deal with the matter when necessary. It does not follow that they will deal with it by sending inspectors all over the country. It means that the members of the agricultural committee, each in his own district, will have good information about any flagrant case, and if the machinery is sufficiently simple it could be dealt with very expeditiously. My noble friend says that while the machinery is working the weeds

219
are growing. The weeds are growing all the same, whether there is any machinery or not. What we want is to give the weeds a little less chance of growing.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I shall be very pleased to see whether it is possible before the Report stage to frame a clause dealing with this matter, but I thought it right to point out the difficulties connected with it.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am put in a little difficulty. My noble friend in charge of the Bill is doubtful whether he can produce before the Report stage a clause which will meet the case. What I would suggest, therefore, is that my Amendment be put in the Bill, and that my noble friend on the Report stage can then delete it if desirable and put in another one in its place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provision of funds for agricultural development.
3. For the purpose of providing a special fund for promoting agricultural development, including the establishment of scholarships and maintenance grants for the sons and daughters of agricultural workmen and others, there shall during the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament the sum of one million pounds.
Out of the sum so to be paid as aforesaid the sum of eight hundred and fifty thousand pounds shall be paid to the Development Fund to be applied for the purpose of aiding and developing agriculture in England and Wales in the manlier specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, other than the extension of the provision of small holdings, and the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds shall be paid to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund to be applied by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the like purpose in Scotland.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out "agricultural workmen and others" and insert "persons employed in agriculture." The noble Lord said: The history of this clause is that when it was introduced in another place it merely provided the money and left it, as far as I can see, entirely optional to the Minister how the money should be spent. Then members in another place thought it desirable that some general instruction should be given to the Minister as to the persons who were
220
to have the benefits of this grant, of which we all so strongly approve. I understand that it was at first confined to the sons and daughters of agricultural workmen. Objection was taken to that, and the words "and others" were inserted. While I agree that the words "sons and daughters of agricultural workmen" are too limiting, on the other hand putting in the words "and others" enlarges it much more than is desirable. I have put down an amendment confining it to the sons and daughters of persons employed in agriculture. Without such an Amendment there would be a danger that some Minister might think it would be a good thing to allow the sons and daughters of people who had nothing whatever to do with agriculture to conic in, and, as a good kind of education, or in case they might wish to take up agriculture in the future, educate them at the expense of this fund. The fund is considerable, but it is not excessive, and it seems to me very desirable that the full benefit of it should be reserved for those people whose futures are entirely concerned with agriculture.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("agricultural workmen and others") and insert ("persons employed in agriculture")—(Lord,Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment. The insertion of these words does not, in fact, add anything to the scope of the clause, but it is quite clear that the purpose for which these moneys may be applied in accordance with Clause 1, subsection (1) (a) of the Development and Road Improvement Fund Act, 1909, includes the establishment of scholarship and maintenance grants for any person. It was, however, urged in Committee in another place that it was desirable to indicate in the Act that sons and daughters of agricultural workmen should be eligible for scholarships and grants. This would have raised a question as to whether other persons were eligible, and therefore the words "and others" were inserted. The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would, as he said, confine the award of scholarships and grants to the sons and daughters of persons employed in agriculture. There is no reason why the class of persons eligible should be so restricted; indeed, the subsequent provisions of the clause which clearly cover scholarships and grants to other persons would be inconsistent

221
with the first paragraph if amended as is suggested. I confess I see no reason why this money should be confined to the persons contemplated by the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite see the force of what the noble Earl has just stated, and therefore I am not in sympathy with the proposal of my noble friend, Lord Strachie, that these scholarships or grants should be earmarked only for the children of those engaged in agriculture. I do not see why the children of other persons living in the country—for instance, the child of a veterinary surgeon living in a village—should not be equally eligible if he or she means to undertake an agricultural career. But I cannot help observing, with reference to what the noble Earl has just said, that it seems a queer piece of drafting to bring in the sons and daughters of agricultural workmen and then to include everybody else. I should have thought it would surely be a great deal simpler to have said merely—" including the establishment of scholarships and maintenance grants." I do not know whether the noble Earl or his Department attach much importance to the retention of those words, but it seems to me, from the Parliamentary point of view, to be rather bad drafting. I do not move anything.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill:
LORD BLEDISLOEOn this subject I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, in deciding what particular institutions which provide agricultural education shall receive a part of this grant, the whole of the existing system of agricultural education will be properly explored. If that is not done there seems to be a real danger of certain institutions which may not be regarded as absolutely up-to-date being ruled out altogether when, in fact, there is a real need for those institutions if only they are properly remodelled and brought into line with modern ideas. I refer, very especially, to the oldest and greatest of our agricultural colleges, in fact, the oldest agricultural college in the British Empire—The Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester—which at present is unfortunately closed and which all those who are connected with it are exceedingly anxious to re-open. That depends upon a
222
matter of something like £10,000 in order to bring the equipment and buildings up-to-date and to enable the institution to be once more available.
I mention that particular case because the Universities are finding it extremely difficult to cater for the class in which sonic of your Lordships must necessarily be interested—namely, the sons of the smaller squires and of the larger farmers. In each case it is found impossible to provide art allowance sufficient to enable these young men to obtain a University education, without extreme discomfort to themselves I may say also that at Oxford and at Cambridge there are large and increasing numbers of agricultural students, and it is being found impossible to cater for more in view of the increasing demand from the very class for which the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester could best cater if it were able to re-open its doors.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope I may be allowed to intervene for a moment to support what has been said by my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, who may be regarded, I think, as the most, distinguished living alumnus of the great college which he has mentioned, where he gained every distinction which it is possible to attain. The noble Lord has stated one point which ought to carry great weight with the Department—namely that with reference to the really wonderful agricultural schools, as they both are, at the two great Universities. It is impossible to speak too highly of the schools at Oxford and Cambridge in their different ways. They by no means overlap, but each gives a very high form of agricultural education. There is, however, a large number of persons who either cannot afford to send their sons to Oxford or Cambridge, or, even if they can, are a little nervous of the effect on their boys of sending them into what they may consider more extravagant surroundings than those in winch their lives will afterwards be passed. Such a college as that at Cirencester meets the case of those people entirely, because it is, in the ordinary sense, of a higher grade than most of the county agricultural colleges can hope to be and yet, at time same time, it has been carried on, as I think, if it is re-opened, it will undoubtedly continue to be, on simple lines. I trust, therefore, that my noble friend's appeal will have the very careful consideration of the Minister and of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Had I known that I should be questioned as to the way in which this sum of £1,000,000 was to be expended, I could, perhaps, have given your Lordships some better information on the subject. As a matter of fact, I believe nothing has been definitely settled at the present moment, though doubtless suggestions have been made. I think I am quite right in saying, because I have seen a rough draft of the suggestions, though I do not think they have been absolutely confirmed, that the college of which the noble Lord has spoken, the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester, will be considered and not left out in the cold.
On Question, Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Establishment of voluntary joint councils of employers and workmen in agriculture.
4. Whereas it is expedient that joint conciliation committees representative of persons employing workmen in agriculture and of such workmen should without delay be formed by agreement throughout Great Britain for the purpose of dealing with wages or hours or conditions of employment:
(1) Now, therefore, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as respects England and Wales, and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland as respects Scotland, shall have power to take such steps as they think best adapted for securing the voluntary formation and continuance thereof.
(2) The persons who are at the date of the passing of this Act members of a district wages committee for any area as representatives of persons employing workmen in agriculture or of workmen engaged in agriculture shall, until the expiration of two years from that date or until a joint conciliation committee is formed, whichever first happens, form a joint conciliation committee for the purpose of dealing with the matters aforesaid within any part of the said area for which a joint conciliation committee does not exist, and any vacancy occurring among those representatives shall be filled by the appointment of a member by the organisation representing employers or workmen by whom the vacating member was nominated.
(3) The organisation representing employers or workmen by whom any member of any such committee as aforesaid was nominated or appointed (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) may at any time appoint another person to be a member of the committee in place of that existing member, and thereupon the existing member shall vacate office.
(4) Any such committee as aforesaid which has agreed upon a rate of wages for any class of persons employed in agriculture in the district or any part of the district for which the committee is formed (except the members of the class for -which on account of special circumstances exemption is provided by the agreement) may submit the agreement to the Minister for confirmation, and the Minister may confirm the
224
agreement and cause the same and the date from which and the period for which it shall operate to be advertised in the district to which it applies, in such manner as the Minister may think fit, with a view to bringing the terms thereof, as far as practicable, to the knowledge of the persons affected.
(5) Where any rate of wages has been so agreed, confirmed, and advertised, and so long as the agreement is in operation, it shall be an implied term of every contract for the employment after the specified date of a workman of any class to which the agreement applies (having regard to any exemptions provided by the agreement) that the employer shall pay to that workman wages at not less than the rate payable under the agreement.
(6) Where any rate of wages has been agreed by a committee and been duly confirmed and advertised as aforesaid nothing in any agreement for the employment of a workman in agriculture shall operate to deprive the workman of his right to receive wages at that rate, except—

(a) where the committee, or a sub-committee thereof, is satisfied that the agreement for payment of wages at a lower rate was, having regard to any special circumstances affecting the workman or to the special terms of the agreement, fair and reasonable, and issues a certificate accordingly; or

(b) where, on an application made for such a certificate, the committee or subcommittee have failed to agree with respect to the matter, and the court in which proceedings are taken for the recovery of wages at the rate agreed by the committee is so satisfied as aforesaid:

and then only to the extent to which the committee or sub-committee certifies or the court determines that the wages payable to the workman should be at some lower rate than the rate so agreed by the committee.
(7) Any such committee as aforesaid may appoint an independent person to act as chairman, or may agree to such an appointment being made by any Government department or other body, and a chairman may be appointed with or without power to vote, and with such other powers as the committee may determine.
(8) The representatives of employers and workmen on a joint conciliation committee shall, respectively, have one collective vote on any question.
(9) This section, except subsection (1) thereof, shall not apply to Scotland.
(10) In this section:—

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

(b) The expression "workmen" includes boys, women, and girls;

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

LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, at the beginning of the clause, after "Whereas it is expedient that," to insert "local" The noble Lord said: I must refer your Lordships for an explanation of my Amendment to the first subsection, in which the Minister of Agriculture is given power to take such steps as he thinks best adapted for securing the voluntary formation and continuance of joint conciliation committees. I want to avoid giving power to the Minister to create anything in the nature of a Central Conciliation Board, which would have an unpleasant resemblance to that particular Board to get rid of which an endeavour is now being made. I suggest that it can be done by putting in the word ''local"before'' joint conciliation committees," but it is difficult, I am informed, to say whether this will actually meet the point, because the whole of these arrangements are of a voluntary character, and no actual power is laid down as being given to either party. I hope, however, that the noble Earl will accept the Amendment, for I do not think it is the intention, at all events of the present Government, to set up anything in the nature of a Central Board.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, after ("that") insert ("local").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept this Amendment. These conciliation committees are to be local in character, and there is therefore no objection to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved after "persons", where that word firstly occurs, to insert "whether owners or occupiers of agricultural land." The noble Lord said: Some doubt seems to have been expressed or felt yesterday, in the course of the Second Reading debate upon this Bill, as to whether or not this expression" persons employing workmen in agriculture" included owners as well as occupiers of land. I took the opportunity of reminding your Lordships yesterday that probably something like one quarter of the employers of rural labour in this country are in fact, not tenant farmers, but land owners. Of course, this committee will fix wages which, directly or indirectly, will become the wages of estate employees just as much as of farm employees, and it is in order to safeguard the position of
226
landowners and other employers of rural labour, who often are by far the most conciliatory persons you can find to sit on these committees, that I move the insertion of these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, after ("persons") insert ("whether owners or occupiers of agricultural land ").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD CLINTON: I have an Amendment down later to accomplish the same object as that which my noble friend desires to achieve by his Amendment. There is reason for this, in view of the present constitution of the existing wages boards. They are in every case, I think, under the Regulations of the Ministry, constituted of representatives of a particular organisation of labour, and of no other persons, and as these conciliation boards will be in many cases the lineal descendants of the boards now existing I think it is advisable that an Amendment to this effect should be put in. So far as I am concerned I have no particular choice whether it is inserted here or later, and I should be willing to accept the view of the Ministry upon the matter, if they are willing, as I hope they are, to accept the principle of the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I cannot help thinking that on this question there is a certain amount of misunderstanding among noble Lords. I will try at once to explain the matter, and will commence by saying that later on we intend to accept an Amendment to leave out "woodlands." That will make a good deal of difference. If you put in the words "owners of land," giving owners some right to be on conciliation committees, you may put people on those committees who do not employ a single person in agriculture. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, who, in the course of his speech yesterday, mentioned the question of occupying owners.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I did not.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Some noble Lord mentioned the matter of occupying owners. The moment a man is an occupying owner he becomes, of course, an occupier, and therefore has every right to be represented on the conciliation committee. Everyone who occupies land for the purpose of agriculture would and should

227
be represented on these committees. If you put in the words "owner of agricultural land" as well as "occupier of agricultural land" I do not think you really are achieving that which you wish to bring about. You desire that occupying owners shall be represented. They will be represented. But by putting in the word "owners" you might give the nonresident landowners, who do not employ a single man in any way in agriculture, the right to be represented. I think the matter is safeguarded if the word "woodlands" is left out.
If a non-resident landowner is employing a large number of foresters in his woods it may be said that he is employing them as woodmen, and that woodmen are included; but if the word "woodlands" is left out that point would be met. The sole thing that we desire, in regard to these conciliation committees, is that the representatives of the employers shall be people who employ workmen in agriculture. This will not leave out any owner of land in any way whatsoever, provided that he is occupying land and employing people in agriculture. Personally, I think it would be a mistake to put in the word"owners." It might perhaps read better, but I do not think it would have quite the effect that noble Lords desire, while it would leave open the door for non-resident owners, employing nobody in agriculture, to say that they ought to be represented on the conciliation committees.
LORD STRACHIE: I think there is a good deal in what the noble Earl has said by way of objection to the Amendment of Lord Bledisloe, which is perhaps too drastic, and does not give any latitude to the Minister. I would draw attention to an Amendment which I have down later on the Paper, and which comes before Lord Clinton's Amendment. It says: in line 19, after "steps, "insert" and shall have regard to the representation of all classes of persons employing workmen in agriculture." That is merely drawing the attention of the Minister to the fact that it is desirable that all classes, including owners, should be considered in this matter. I am ready to admit that the fact of the Government saying they are ready to accept the Amendment to leave out"woodlands"has some effect, but that interpretation is very much larger indeed than that which was included in the previous Act, because
228
then you had orchards and osier beds and other things included. It is very desirable that some words such as those suggested in my Amendment should be put in, and my reason for saying that is this. In another place, the Minister of Agriculture was always referring to the National Farmers' Union, and also to the Agricultural Labourers' Union, as if those were the only two bodies to be consulted. I can assure the noble Earl in charge of this Bill that there is a very strong feeling amongst landowners that the Bill contemplates dealing only with the National Farmers' Union as regards the employment of labour, and that such bodies as the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the Central Landowners' Association, will not be consulted. It was remarkable, when this Bill was going through another place, that, except in reference to Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture never seemed to have any regard to the bodies which directly represent landowners in this matter. He always spoke of the National Farmers' Union. He said the National Farmers' Union agrees to this, or disapproves of that, and never said anything as to the attitude of the landowners. It seems only right, therefore, that there should be some direction in this Bill to the effect that I have indicated, not only for the benefit of the present Minister of Agriculture, but for anyone who may come after him. We do not know who may succeed him, and I think it is very desirable that landowners, as such, should be considered in this matter, because they are large employers of labour, and some of the best employers.
LORD SUMNER: I think the real difficulty of this clause arises not from any conflict between the words in the clause and the words as proposed by the noble Lord, but because the clause itself does not seem to have been drafted by anyone who quite knew what he wanted to attain. I draw attention to that because I think it is characteristic of Clause 4 and the whole of its subsections, and if I can get an opportunity at the proper time I am going to try to show your Lordships that the whole of the clause is unworkable.
Except for the possible difficulty that the reference is to "persons" and not "all persons," I should have thought it was quite clear that these committees were to consist of employers on the one hand and

229
of employees on the other, and of nobody else. I do not suppose it was intended, and. I can hardly think it is the case, that the fact that you are an owner of land should be a disqualification for exercising your rights as an employer of agricultural workmen. Therefore, strictly speaking, I think the noble Lord's Amendment, though it does no harm, is not really required, because all that those words would do would be to show that it did not matter whether you owned the agricultural land or occupied the agricultural land, provided you employed workmen in agriculture upon that land.
On the other hand, I do not understand that it is proposed from this side to expand this clause in such a way as to make it the right of landowners who do not employ anybody to be represented on these conciliation committees which deal with the wage and so forth, of the workmen who are employed. I do not suppose it is said that because one happens to be trustee of some building land which is not cultivated at all, therefore one is entitled to any representation on a conciliation committee of this kind. To my mind the real point is that this will not work except through organisations either that have been formed, or that will be formed, to represent classes of persons. It is evidently built upon those lines. It evidently means that the committees are to represent two sides, and somehow or other some organisation is to get its own men in on the one side or on the other. If that is what is intended, I am sure that what will happen will he that persons who employworkmen in agriculture, and are organised, will be very active to secure the whole of the representation on their side of the committee, and a large number of persons who employ workmen in agriculture, and who get on so well with their workmen that they have never on either side required any organisation at all, will find that they are left out in the cold. And they are left out in the cold precisely for the same reason that half the people in this country are left out in the cold—namely, that they are not organised and do not make themselves noisy, and therefore do not make themselves heard.
There will be thousands of persons not very actively concerned in agriculture, but who at the same time farm a bit and own some land and employ some men, who will find that as they do not belong to a tenant farmers' union—and so far as I
230
know there is no particular landowners' union that will be sufficiently powerful to succeed in this matter—they may be left out altogether, or elbowed out, simply because, though they are persons employing workmen in agriculture, there is no machinery in this clause which enables them to get any representation on the committee at all.
The same thing I am sure will be found when we come to discuss the words, in the first subsection, about taking steps best adapted for the formation of these committees—words so vague that I am perfectly satisfied that they cannot be worked at all, except by the absolute good will and consent of those concerned. They will break down the moment any conflict of claims arises. Unless this clause is redrafted in order to define exactly how these committees are to be formed, and who is to be entitiled to have a voice in electing members of them, and what organisations are to be entitled to a share in the representation, I am perfectly satisfied that in working it would at once come to a conflict between rival interests, for the solution of which conflict the clause provides no machinery whatever, and either it would not work, or, if it did work, it would work by sheer tyranny. For the moment, I would venture to suggest, whether the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted or not (and it can do no harm), that on the Report stage some attention should be drawn to the difficulties I have tried to point out, with a view to making the thing work, as I suppose, if there are to be conciliation committees at all, we hope they will work.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say one word in answer to what was said by the noble Earl. The words "persons employing workmen in agriculture," as they stand at present, cover the whole definition; therefore, if the words proposed to be inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, were inserted none of the difficulties would arise to which the noble Earl has called attention.]t would not give any right of representation to an absentee landlord; it would not give any right of representation to a landlord who did not employ workmen in agriculture; and therefore, I must say that I hope that the words will be adopted. I think the objections of the noble Earl would not apply. The words do define, and I think

231
properly define, the class of persons who ought to be represented if they employ agricultural labour.
THE EARL OF ANCASTERIf it is the general wish of the noble Lords that the words should be inserted I have no objection to accepting the Amendment. The only thing is that I must consider, before the Report stage, whether it will let in people who are not employing anybody in agriculture and have no right to representation.
LORD CLINTON: I think Lord Bledisloe's Amendment is open to some objections, and I am under the impression that the proposal in my name is perhaps better suitable to the purpose than the one the noble Lord has set down. I said that I would accept either Amendment, whichever the noble Earl wished, but on the whole to leave out the word "owner" seems to sue of some advantage in this connection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, immediately before subsection (1), to substitute "of labour" for "or conditions of employment." The noble Lord said: It is rather an important question which I propose to raise, by asking your Lordships to leave out the words "or conditions of employment" and simply add the words "of labour" so that the words will read: "for the purpose of dealing with wages or hours of labour." Some noble Lords have urged upon me that I ought to move the omission of the word"hours"as well, but I should like to point out that as regards hours, so long as wages are reckoned by the week it is obvious that the question of hours must be a material question in considering whether the wages are adequate. But you come to a totally different question when you extend, for the first time in this Bill, the powers of the local wage committees to conditions of employment.
The whole position is now governed by Section 4 of Part II of the Corn Production Act, 1917, and there is nothing whatever in that section which covers any question other than the wages of agricultural workers. If you are going to extend the operation of these committees to conditions of labour, they may take into account such questions as housing, half-holidays, and the use of machinery, which have
232
nothing whatever to do with the particular functions these committees apparently are to be asked to discharge. It seems undesirable, when your Lordships are anxious to lift Government control off agriculture, to extend it in this respect by including within the scope of these committees conditions of employment as well as wages and hours.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("or conditions of employment") and insert ("of labour")—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The effect of this Amendment will be to limit the conciliation committees to questions dealing with wages and hours of labour, though it is difficult to see how any provision in an Act can prevent a conciliation committee, if they thought fit, arriving at an agreement as to conditions of employment. It is obvious that wages and hours of employment are the primary matters likely to be dealt with by these committees, but I am not satisfied that there may not be some question arising as to conditions of employment, perhaps not directly connected with wages and hours of labour. Although it is not very material whether the words "or conditions of employment" are struck out or not, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. Some questions may arise in which it may be desirable that conciliation committees should be able to deal with conditions of employment, and I hope, therefore, he will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Has the noble Earl considered whether the words "conditions of employment" may not bring us into the old difficulty into which the wages boards got on the subject of cottages? The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Fareham, gave us a pledge, when the original Bill was before your Lordships, that the question of cottages should no longer be considered by them. I cannot see how, under the words "or conditions of employment," you can rule out the possibility of their taking cottages into consideration, and proceeding to fix the rent, as sonic of the wages boards have done. I hope the Amendment will be pressed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl has remarked that there is nothing obligatory in the arrangement arrived at

233
by these committees, except on rates of wages. Does not that practically involve that what is decided about hours and overtime is also enforceable? How is it possible to make the rate of wages an obligation without also making an obligation whatever may be agreed upon by the committee; for instance, on the question of payment for overtime?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think that point should be considered again before the Report stage. Unless the hours are fixed by the conciliation committee they will not know at what hour to begin paying the rate for overtime. I am obliged to the noble Marquess for having put that point; it is certainly one which should be considered. On the general question as to conditions of employment," I should still regret if the words were struck out. A case has occurred to me; it may be far-fetched, but it is one which the conciliation committee might have to take into consideration. I know of farms where they are in the habit of bringing some 500 or 600 people from the neighbouring town in motor lorries in order to work a large area cultivated as market gardens. It may be said that the carting of these people would be a question of"conditions of employment," while the question of railway or 'bus fares enters into the subject. I do not wish to oppose the Amendment if noble Lords think it advisable these words should be left out, but at the same time I hope it will not be pressed.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the original Act there is not a single word about "conditions of employment." I have react Part II and the clause under which the wages boards were instituted, and there is not a single word about "conditions." I entirely agree with the Marquess of Crewe that wages and hours and overtime go together.
LORD PARMOOR: May I put the point of view of the agricultural labourer? He is tenacious of the local conditions under which he works. If you are to allow conditions of employment to be altered, they may be altered against the wish of the agricultural labourer. I ask that he should be allowed to keep all the conditions of employment and that they should not be interfered with.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Viscount said: This subsection gives very wide powers to the Minister of Agriculture. During this session we have had some experience of the danger of putting into the hands of a Minister power to make what Regulations lie may think fit, and it is very desirable that we should have some idea as to what is meant by "shall have power to take such steps as they think best adapted for securing- the voluntary formation and continuance" of these committees. What I think the country expects when this Bill is passed is that we shall have as little control as possible from the Ministry of Agriculture. Most people consider, and it is, I believe, the intention of the Government, that there should be as many conciliation committees formed as is advisable to ensure the peaceful working of the measure. From my own experience, I am satisfied that there should be several conciliation committees in each county. Employers and workmen are more likely to agree if they are governed by a conciliation committee on which are sitting people whom they know and trust, than if they are governed by a committee which lives at a distance.
I should like to have some assurance from the noble Lord that there is no intention whatever of the Ministry of Agriculture placing any limitation on the number of conciliation boards that might be thought advisable in any county. I certainly think we also ought to know a little more as to whether these steps are going to be taken immediately and in what form action is going to be taken. I therefore move the Amendment which stands in my name, trusting I may have some satisfactory assurance from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill as to what intention the Government have of using these very wide powers that are given to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 16 to 21, leave out subsection (1)—(Viscount Galway.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: On the next five or six pages of the Amendment Paper there are a number of Amendments to leave out subsections, followed by Amendments to amend those subsections. I think it would be most convenient if I adopted the form of Question "to leave out the, first word of the subsection" in every case. If that be not accepted, the rights of other

235
noble Lords are safe The Question, therefore, is whether the word "Now be omitted.
LORD HASTINGS: The procedure laid down by the Lord Chairman makes it convenient, I think, that I should speak upon the Amendment which stands in my name. I have not put down this Amendment, and two consequential Amendments which appear later on the Paper, out of any affection that I feel for these conciliation boards or for the agricultural committees. I regard both as set up more or less expressly for the purpose of interfering with the liberty of the subject, and neither of them, therefore, to be encouraged. But it is evident that in the country, as well as in your Lordships' House, there is a preponderance of opinion in favour of constituting these conciliation committees, and it appears to me to be wise, if it be possible so to do, to set up these committees in a business-like manner.
We have heard already on the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, that in the absence of good will the whole of this clause is literally unworkable. I think it is evident that that must be so. We cannot find—at least I cannot find—throughout the later clauses any words establishing the authority whose business it shall be to take the initiative in the matter of forming these committees. We can find nothing in this clause which lays it down sufficiently clearly how these committees shall be constituted. If it be desirable to set up conciliation committees at all, surely the subjects with which they deal are of such enormous importance locally that it is desirable to set them up in a manner which all can understand, and which will give them a chance of working when they are set up.
As every noble Lord knows perfectly well, the wages paid and payable constitute perhaps the most important subject in the agriculturist's life. The farmer or employer of agricultural labour, who has to pay his labourers week by week, must know exactly what he has to pay The labourer, equally, requires to know what he is going to receive, and he requires to have his point of view properly represented on a committee properly constituted. Under this clause, as it stands at the present moment, it would appear that the district wages committees which are now
236
in existence shall continue in existence for a more or less indefinite period, and that they will, in the nature of things, become the parents of the new conciliation committees, even if they do not become the new conciliation committees themselves. That is a matter which will give grave dissatisfaction in considerable areas throughout the country. The district wages committees are not invariably constituted in accordance with the present day views of employers and employed in agriculture.
I acknowledge that the Minister of Agriculture retains to himself the right to take such steps as he may think best for securing the voluntary formation and continuance of the committees. But what power will there be under this clause as it stands for individuals or organisations not now represented on the district wages committees to make their views felt in the constitution of new committees? In a given county there may be at present not more than one, or two, or three district wages committees. That county may require a dozen conciliation committees, and may not be at all satisfied with the meagre representation that it now has on existing district wages committees. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill will no doubt be able to assure me that my fears are really unfounded, because the Minister of Agriculture retains to himself so much power. But I think the community at large would prefer to find in the Act of Parliament under which they have to work some direct guide as to how they are to proceed, and not to leave all these things in the nebulous condition in which they stand now, and in the hands of a Ministry whose constitution may not always command the confidence that it commands at the present time.
I have ventured to put down words which, I suggest, leave nothing lacking in definiteness. I have suggested that the agricultural committee of the county concerned shall have the initiative in the matter of setting up these committees. It places a duty upon them, but, if I may be allowed to refer to a later Amendment, I do not propose that these agricultural committees shall have anything to do with the constitution of the conciliation committee or have any powers over them. Their business is begun and ended in setting up these committees, establishing them, and seeing that they are established within three months of the date on which

237
this Act conics into force. I have also endeavoured in my Amendment to cover the point of providing a sufficient number of conciliation committees by placing upon the agricultural committee the duty of considering the number that will be required throughout the county.
The agricultural committees existing in each county are bodies well understood in their respective counties. They are accessible bodies, easily got at by any person or body of persons who wish for representation or wish to set up a conciliation committee. The Ministry of Agriculture is not easily accessible. The agricultural committee understands the county and knows its opinions on this subject of conciliation committees, and suggest that, the agricultural committees being existence and continuing in existence, it is desirable that they should he set up as the constituted authority, if I may use those words. It is they who are to have the initiative, and, if we put these words into the Bill, we shall at least know that these conciliation committees, which we have just agreed are desirable, are going to be established, Unless some such words are inserted, we have no guarantee that they are going to be established. Shall I be in order in moving my Amendment?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the House is to leave out the subsection. I think that has to be decided before the noble Lord's Amendment can be actually moved.
LORD SUMNER: May I refer to what is really a point of order that I think it is desirable your Lordships should have before you in considering this matter? Of course, the whole of Clause 4 is really the pith of the Bill, so far as discussion is concerned, and, to a very large number—at least I hope it is very large—of members of your Lordships' House, the subsection which makes the decision of the conciliation committee enforceable is the most important part of the clause. But I think I make no mistake in saying that, as the Amendment Paper stands, the Amendment which is now before the House is the only one upon which we can, strictly speaking, discuss and effectually take action upon that part of subsection (5) which makes any rate of wages agreed, confirmed and advertised, an implied term in every contract of employment.
238
Your Lordships will notice that the noble Viscount., Lord Chaplin, had an Amendment to leave out subsection (5), and, of course, if he had been here to move his Amendment., we should have had an opportunity upon it to leave out subsection (5), although the whole of the rest of Clause 4 might stand. Unless some other noble Lord is intending to move Lord Chaplin's Amendment for him—I do not know whether that is the case—I think I am right in saying that the only way in Committee, as the Amendment Paper stands, of cutting out the compulsory feature in this clause, is to carry the Amendment of the noble Viscount opposite. Of course, it is true, as the Lord Chairman was good enough to remind me, that anyone can voluntarily move Lord Chaplin's Amendments for him, but possibly that may not happen, and I am satisfied that the best way of discussing this clause is to be free to deal with the whole of it, because each part reflects upon the imperfections of the other parts, and it is very ineffectual trying to discuss it subsection by subsection. I therefore ask to be allowed to address myself to the noble Viscount's Amendment as getting rid of the whole of the clause, because I think it is clear that, apart from the biassed and optimistic words of the recital, if you get rid of subsection (1) all the other subsections fall to the ground, because there is nothing to tack them on to. What is the position?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord in order I ask the guidance of the Lord Chairman as to the desire of the House, on a Motion to leave out initial words, that we should discuss the whole clause, and the whole of the Amendments on that clause. If that be done it will be difficult to know what we are actually doing.
LORD SUMNER: I fear I was not successful in making my object plain. It would not be strictly in order, I suppose, on an Amendment to leave out lines 16 to 21 on page 3, to make any extended allusion to the subsection on page 4. But for the purpose of showing that the whole scheme of the clause is unsatisfactory, it is necessary to refer not only to subsection (1) but to other subsections, and therefore I am not suggesting that we should discuss all the Amendments, at once, but that the whole of the clause must necessarily be

239
referred to if the opposition to the fundamental part of it., which is at the beginning, is to be made effectual. If one is to be effectual in one's opposition to the proposal that the various Ministers of Agriculture shall have power to take such steps as they think best adapted for securing the -voluntary formation and continuance of conciliation committees, surely one must be in a position to inquire what those conciliation committees will do when formed and when continued, because the advisability of maintaining them depends upon what they are going to do when they are constituted. I am, of course, in the hands of your Lordships, but I desire to bring the discussion within the most effectual focus I can find.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I should not hesitate to say that there are precedents both ways, and perhaps it is for your Lordships' convenience that a general discussion should take place on the whole clause, on the first important Amendment. I gather, not having been into this very deeply, that the Amendment of Lord Hastings, although not technically before your Lordships' House, will follow on the Amendment to omit the subsection, and that it does raise a very broad question of policy. On the other hand, there is the question at the end, that the clause stand part of the Bill. It rests entirely with your Lordships when a general discussion shall take place. In my view one course is as convenient as the other.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My object in moving my Amendment was to obtain from the noble Earl an explanation as to the lines which the Government intended to take. If I am satisfied by that, my Amendment can be withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think it would perhaps be more convenient if, first of all, I answered the noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment, and then, if he is satisfied with my explanation and withdraws his Amendment, it will be open for me to go into the further question regarding agricultural committees. The object of this subsection—I do not think it is very obscure—is to enable the two Government Departments concerned to do what they can to organise the formation of committees, and to assist, as I have already said, by a small Department consisting mainly of officers who have already had experience in industrial questions. I should
240
like to make it perfectly clear that the Department cannot enforce any one of their views. First of all, these committees are to be formed, or the areas for which they stand are to be formed The Ministry take no power themselves in that way, but we believe that the Ministry, with this special staff of experts, is the best party to apply to if the districts wish for help and information as to how they should proceed in setting up voluntary conciliation committees. We wish in no way to put compulsion upon anybody, and in fact there is no compulsion involved in the question. When the different parties, employers and employed, wish for the assistance of the Department, the Department is there to help them. That is the whole meaning of the subsection, and, although, if that explanation is satisfactory, we shall come to the Amendment of Lord Hastings, we believe that the Ministry, with people acquainted with the procedure and the formation of these conciliation committees, is the proper body to give help.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Is there any limit of numbers?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is no intention whatever to limit the number of conciliation committees or areas. If any area wishes to set up a conciliation committee all the Ministry shall be satisfied of is that the people who wish to form themselves into conciliation committees are representative of the employers and employed in that district.
LORD CLINTON: With regard to the Amendment of Lord Hastings, its object apparently is to strike out the compulsory power of the Minister to take such steps as he thinks necessary, and makes it compulsory upon the agricultural committee to do so. It goes, of course, a great deal further than the present clause, because he uses the word"maintain," and that, of course, may mean (I do not know whether he intends it) to pay salaries and expenses and otherwise maintain the conciliation committees. But that wording could, of course, very easily be altered. Do your Lordships think it sound, however, that these very great powers should be put into the hands of agricultural committees—many of them, no doubt, most valuable bodies, but many of them such as could not properly be described in that manner? I think it is too strong a

241
step to take. I very much prefer the next Amendment, whereby the power is exercised with the concurrence of the agricultural committee of the county council. It is a very considerable advantage for the Minister himself that he should have the agricultural opinion, so far as it exists, in the county, which he might get from some of these committees, and it would, I think, satisfy the county itself that the areas of the county are properly laid out. I hope my noble friend, Lord Hastings, will consider whether it would not be better for him not to move his Amendment, but to take the discussion on the one to be moved later by Lord Selborne.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Personally, I feel some difficulty in making a choice between the two alternatives, but I am bound to say that, on balance, I think there is an advantage in securing such a measure of uniformity between different areas in the county as the intervention of the Minister would involve. It seems to me that there is a real danger of having in some counties no committee at all, in other counties a committee which is coterminous with the county, and in other counties a committee representing possibly the district of the rural district council, or some similar area. It is obviously to the general advantage of the agricultural community that there should be some uniformity obtaining throughout the whole country, and for that reason I should be rather inclined to favour the Amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, bearing in mind that he, too, desires that there should be a consultation with, or the concurrence of, the county agricultural committee, which, after all, is best able to tell him what are the agricultural conditions prevailing in its area.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope that Lord Selborne's Amendment will be the one adopted. There are one or two excellent reasons for that. The noble Earl pointed out, for instance, the voluntary character of subsection (1). I am not inclined myself to alter that into the compulsory form which is in Lord Hastings' Amendment. All that is really necessary as regards the agricultural committee, either in the way of concurrence (I like the word "concurrence" myself) or in any other way proper to protect the local interests, would certainly be achieved and safeguarded under the noble Earl's Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: Both these Amendments are excellent, but I rather like the Amendment of Lord Hastings, because it does not stereotype everything. My noble friend behind me wants a standard throughout the length and breadth of the country. I have another objection. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has spoken about the setting up of a Labour Department. We have seen what has happened in that respect in the past. We set up a Department, and it grows and grows. And this Department will grow also. We know how the Ministry of Agriculture has expanded already, and according to the papers, the Minister himself contemplates reducing the expenditure by 36 per cent. But it is not the way to reduce expenditure to set up another Department. I cannot help thinking it is very much better to let each county council adopt its own scheme for each separate locality. I am all in favour of decentralisation, but this is centralisation once more. We shall have a large number of officials going about all over the country, consulting these various county councils at great expense, giving them advice, and saying: "You ought to concur with us in this particular matter." On the ground of expenditure, therefore, I shall certainly support Lord Hastings' Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not know whether this is the right time to speak upon my Amendment—I only wish to facilitate things. My proposal is to insert, after "power," the words:"with the concurrence in each case of the agricultural committee of the council of the county concerned as to the constitution and area of jurisdiction of any such joint conciliation committees." The effect of Lord Hastings' Amendment is to transfer the initiative in this matter from the Minister to each county council. I have no objection to that in itself, but I am not quite sure whether it fits in with the scheme of the clause as drafted. I should not be surprised if my noble friend in charge of the Bill pointed out that, if Lord Hastings' Amendment were carried, many subsequent Amendments would be necessary. It was because I thought that was so that I was content to leave the initiative in the hands of the Ministry, and accept the scheme of the drafting of the clause, provided that the Government would accept my Amendment, the intention of which is to make the concurrence of the agricultural committee of the county

243
council necessary in each case before the Minister could recognise one of these joint. conciliation committees.
I put down the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, admirable as the Ministry of Agriculture is, there is a universal tendency in Government Departments towards a sealed pattern. What we want above all things is to get away from the sealed pattern. I very seldom disagree in these matters with my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, but I doubt whether he has entirely considered the full effect of the language he has just used. The circumstances of all our counties vary enormously, and because one county thinks that one joint conciliation committee will serve the whole county there is no reason why another county, where the circumstances are quite different, should not have several joint conciliation committees. Of these conditions the agricultural committee of the county council, in my judgment, is a much better judge than the Ministry of Agriculture. In the second place—and I lay great stress on this—in this purely voluntary movement there may be a conflict of ambitions and a conflict of interests. Several joint conciliation committees may come into birth in one county, not with carefully adjudicated areas, but with overlapping areas, and claiming concurrent jurisdiction. Or again, I can conceive a misguided Minister of Agriculture recognising as a fit joint conciliation committee a body that really was not at all representative of all the interests that ought to be represented in that particular county, or in that particular area of a county. Of all those matters I suggest that the agricultural committee of the county council is the best judge, and therefore my suggestion was, while leaving the initiative in the hands of the Minister, to make it incumbent upon him in every case to secure the concurrence—and I mean that word; I do not mean that he should have secured the consent and approval—of the agricultural committee of the county council.
LORD DYNEVOR: I should like to ask my noble friend, Lord Selborne, a question on his Amendment. I do riot agree either with the Amendment of Lord Galway or with those of Lord Hastings and Lord Selborne. In his Amendment Lord Selborne leaves it to the agricultural committee to settle the area of jurisdiction, but surely the agricultural committee of a county
244
council has no jurisdiction beyond its area. Where several counties meet, the boundaries of the farms are not necessarily the same as those of the counties, and the farms sometimes spread out into two or three counties. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, how he would meet a situation of that sort, which, under his Amendment, would concern the agricultural committees of two or three counties.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The reply to my noble friend is that I do not think his difficulty is one which absolutely floors me. The Minister of Agriculture will consult the agricultural committee of a county council only in respect of land which is in that county If a joint conciliation committee is to be set up to deal with part of one county and part of another the Minister, of course, will consult the agricultural committees of both the county councils concerned.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: And I have no doubt, in pursuing what my noble friend has said, that that is what will have to be done. My impression is (and in this I differ from my noble friend behind me) that it is a case that very often must arise. I think it will be found that in areas where the system of farming is uniform, conciliation committees may very often overlap county boundaries. I am glad, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, has raised the question, because it is one of considerable importance.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to raise one point in connection with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, which I take to be before the House. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out with considerable emphasis that under the Amendment he is suggesting the initiative would remain with the Ministry of Agriculture. It is precisely because some of us feel that the definition of the initiative in the Bill as it stands is so vague that we are very much inclined to support Lord Hastings' Amendment which definitely puts upon county agricultural committees the duty of setting up conciliation committees and defining the area over which they shall have jurisdiction. If that Amendment were adopted, I feel that more would be done in the matter than is possible under the Bill as it stands.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: We have had a general discussion on the question of

245
whether those persons who wish to set up a. conciliation committee should or should not go to the Minister of Agriculture for advice. The opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture is that they, the Ministry, are the best persons to give advice in such cases. We think that we can give better advice and direction than a county council can. I have already said something which has raised the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. We have one officer who has given us advice on this question, and in my opinion this officer, who is a public servant and is well acquainted with the working of conciliation boards and matters pertaining to industrial disputes, is a far better person to help us in this matter than an official of any county council. At present the staff of a county council has absolutely nothing at all to do with trade disputes and conciliation boards, and the matter is entirely new to the county councils themselves.
There is another argument I should like to urge upon your Lordships in regard to this matter. I am not at all certain whether the county councillors and aldermen would be so delighted to have this work thrust upon them. It is work which must, to a large extent, if not entirely, deal with labour questions. The setting up of conciliation committees and the definition of their areas are labour questions, and up to the present county councils in England and Wales, thank goodness, have been very, very little involved in such questions. I am not at all certain that the county councils will be very pleased at having a new duty thrown upon them, and at the same time becoming involved in labour disputes. There are plenty of people who take the view that the agricultural committees of county councils should lay down regulations for conciliation committees and bring them into existence. Noble Lords who hold that view will no doubt support the Amendment. We hold, on the contrary, that they are not the best bodies for the purpose. They have no expert advisers, and when all is said and done it would be a very great mistake for them to do it.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, made a good point—that you may very likely get districts partly in two or three different counties. We all know that there are some places (chiefly famous for the great prize fights which have been held there) where three counties join. In such a place there may be a piece of very good land or
246
of shocking bad land, with perhaps twenty or thirty villages, where the conditions of agriculture are very much the same, but at the same time the land is in three different counties and it would be desirable that twenty or thirty parishes, all lying in the same area with the same kind of land to deal with, should settle upon their conciliation committee and write to the Ministry of Agriculture, saying: "We are under rather special conditions and we wish to set up our own conciliation committee here. Will you help us to form it, and tell us how to set to work?" That is the plain reason why we wish to make it perfectly open and free to any party to form conciliation committees to deal with this question of employment.
We do not wish to dictate to anyone. All that the Minister of Agriculture desires to do, as I said in answer to a previous Amendment, is to have somebody at the Ministry who can give help to those who are desirous of forming conciliation committees. We are of opinion that the matter is one which is best left to voluntary effort and that the Ministry will be better able to help those who wish to set up conciliation committees than the county councils can be. That is the answer on the general question. It would be impossible for me to accept the Amendment of Lord Hastings, whereby the agricultural committee of the county council are to set up these bodies. We do not think that this is the right thing to be done, and we very much object to that part of the Amendment which says that they "shall define the area over which each of such committees shall have jurisdiction."
We cannot accept the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Of course "with the concurrence of" means that the county councils would have the power of vetoing any decision arrived at by the Ministry of Agriculture as regards the formation of any one of these conciliation committees, of which the Ministry does not approve. We think that if a body of people in certain parishes like to form a conciliation committee, and they satisfy the Ministry of Agriculture that the people they have drawn together are representative of employers and employed their arrangement should not be upset by the county council. We do not feel so strongly on the question of consulting the county council as the noble Lord, who is particularly anxious, before we take a step, that the agricultural

247
committee of the county council should be consulted. We do not object to that, but we think it may give rise to certain delay, and on the whole the Ministry desire to adhere to their original plan—namely, that the formation of these committees should be of a voluntary nature, and that the Ministry of Agriculture should be there to assist in the formation of the committees. We do not wish to place the formation of the committees under the agricultural committees of the county councils.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess that many of us on this side of the House regret very much the line that the noble Earl has taken upon this Amendment. We do not share with him his opinion of the capacity of the agricultural committees of the county councils. He says that he does not think they are capable of forming a sound opinion upon wages and hours. But in our agricultural counties some of the best authorities on agriculture in the country are members of the county councils, and probably a large majority of the members of the county council to which I belong have a considerable knowledge of agriculture, while some of its members know at least as much about wages and hours, and how they ought to be arranged, as does the Ministry of Agriculture. We have learned in the last few years to distrust the pressure from a central organisation. We have seen each of the Departments in turn—the Ministry of Health, of course, very much so—setting up a central organisation by means of which the Department wields influence upon the localities. Most of us have got to distrust that interference and to dislike it. We would much rather rely upon the knowledge of our localities possessed by those in those localities. Persons in a locality know best the relations which ought to exist among the various classes of the community to which- they belong.
I also think that the difficulties—and in this respect I do not quite agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe—of arranging as between county and county are not so great as he imagined. The truth is, we have to accommodate ourselves to county administration, and in almost all departments practically we do accept the county boundaries as the proper boundaries for working purposes. Whatever system is adopted—whether the system of the
248
Government, or the system which my noble friends on this side of the House are urging—I think it will be found, as a matter of practice, that nearly always the county boundaries will be accepted as bounding the areas. The whole county will not necessarily, and always, be the area. There may be exceptions, and in respect of those exceptions my noble friend's Amendment will allow sufficient elasticity. But as a general rule, knowing what I do of county feeling, I think it will be found that the county boundary will be generally followed.
As between the two Amendments—the Amendment of Lord Hastings and that of my noble friend, Lord Selborne—that is a matter for your Lordships to decide I must say that in some respects I am very much attracted to that of Lord Hastings, because by it we get rid of too much interference by the Ministry of Agriculture. If it be thought, as I believe it is thought by a great many of your Lordships, that a certain measure of uniformity might be induced—not a complete measure of uniformity, we should all deplore that very much—by the intervention of the county council, then we should adopt the Amendment in the name of Lord Selborne.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Marquess who spoke last referred to the possibility of a conciliation committee being formed and overlapping one county, or possibly more than one county, boundary. It certainly seems to me that in various parts of England this is likely to occur. But the noble Marquess was in error in supposing that I thought a great difficulty would arise on that account. Two or more county agricultural committees could no doubt, so far as they may be introduced into the system, quite easily conic to terms upon the formation of such a committee. I am bound to say that of the two Amendments which have been discussed together, I prefer that moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for this reason. I see a distinct value in the assistance, of the Ministry of Agriculture at the preliminary stage of the formation of these committees. As has already been said, without prescribing anything like a wooden uniformity, I agree with what was said by the noble Earl who represents the Department that valuable advice can be given by the experienced officials of the Ministry on certain points concerning the formation and work of the committees.

249
As I ventured to say on Second Reading, I have far graver doubts about the continued interference of the Ministry of Agriculture at a later stage, when the confirmation of schemes arrived at by the conciliation committees is in question. But that does not arise at this moment, and so far as initiative is concerned I am quite prepared that the Ministry should take a leading part in it. At the same time I hope that my noble friend, Lord Selborne, will adhere to his proposition that the concurrence of the county agricultural committees should be required when the schemes for local conciliation committees are formed, both as regards their constitution and their areas.
LORD EMMOTT: I intervene with sonic diffidence only for a moment for the purpose of making a suggestion. I very much prefer the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to that of Lord Hastings. I mean that I prefer the Government plan, with an Amendment somewhat on the lines suggested. But the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill made one very serious objection to Lord Selborne's Amendment, and that was that there would be two bodies with a power of veto—the agricultural committee of the county council and the Ministry. I am afraid that this clause, as at present drawn, may not work at all, and I think there is a great deal in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, said on that point. But if the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, could modify his Amendment by inserting after "council," "consultation in each case,'' that, it seems to me, would remove some of the difficulties. Otherwise, I do not see how it is going to work, if there are to be two people with a veto, and nobody with real power.
LORD HASTINGS: I feel that the Amendment which stands in my name has been attacked by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for making suggestions which, in fact, it does not make. He says that it would involve the comity council in labour disputes. I think I am correct in attributing those words to him. I do not wish agricultural committees of the council to be engaged in labour disputes, nor to have any control of or anything whatever to do with the conciliation committees other than the duty of setting them up. I endeavoured to make clear that there is, under the Bill, no obligation upon anybody to set up these conciliation committees. These conciliation
250
committees are going to form an exceedingly important part of the agriculturist's life. They are going to govern many of the things which are of the greatest importance to him, and it is really necessary that the committees should be set up—at least, that is my view.
All I have invited the noble Lord to do is to accept an Amendment which will give somebody the duty of setting up these conciliation committees. That is really all I wish for. He has enormously strengthened me in my wish to establish these agricultural committees as the constituting authority by informing your Lordships of this staff of officials which exist at the Ministry. It filled me with horror to think that those highly qualified gentlemen were going to be given the duty of setting up these conciliation committees. What in the name of fortune can they know about the conditions which exist in the far-flung corners of English agricultural counties? Surely the agricultural committees which exist in those counties are better qualified to know for what areas conciliation committees should be set up, and how those conciliation committees should be constituted than any official of the Ministry, however high his qualifications. Are there not enough officials at the Ministry of Agriculture already? They have risen from a few in number to a vast army, and surely one of the ambitions of every agriculturist is to see their number reduced by 50 or 75 or 90 per cent. at time earliest possible moment. Lord Clinton found fault with the word "maintain," which naturally would permit of the interpretation he put upon it. Possibly if the House would permit me, I might take out the word "Maintain" and insert the words keep in being." My only object was that when the representatives died others should take their place. That was all I had in mind.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill gave me the impression that the Ministry was going to be deprived of the power of adjudicating in disputes if any should arise. But surely under subsections (4) and (5) of the clause, the Minister has to have the agreement submitted to him for confirmation and he retains all the power that he would wish to retain over the rate of wages which has been agreed upon in the conciliation committee. I cannot for the life of me see how the county council or agricultural committee are going to be involved in labour disputes If I felt that was so I would instantly withdraw

251
my Amendment. But I cannot see how that can be. All I want to do is to establish them as conciliation committees. I believe there is a sufficient amount of support for the Amendment which I have put on the paper to justify me in going forward with it, and therefore I do not propose to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am afraid noble Lords are tired of hearing me, but I will try to put one practical case, because I think when we talk about this hoard of officials and this great Department, set up by the Ministry of Agriculture lately, noble Lords are getting a little off the track. I will try to put an actual case which may occur. As you are aware, by this clause it is proposed to continue the existing wages boards without the appointed members, and those people shall act for two years as a conciliation committee until other conciliation committees are set up. During that time any districts which wish to break away from the existing conciliation committee will write to the Minister of Agriculture and ask what steps they are to take, and whether they can be helped to set up a conciliation committee, and we shall give our best advice as to how they can set to work about it. In reply to their request for advice they would probably get an answer a great deal more quickly than they would from the agricultural committee of the county council. They will then proceed to make arrangements for setting up this conciliation committee. When they have done it all the Minister will want to know is that that conciliation committee so set up does represent the employers and employed. This conciliation committee is formed already; they do represent employers and employed; and they may go ahead.
Now I will give what I consider, and I think a great many noble Lords will also consider, one of the drawbacks of placing it in the hands of the county council to proceed to define areas for these conciliation committees. You have, as I say, this conciliation committee existing now— namely, the present wages board, turned into a conciliation committee. Let us imagine for a moment that they cannot agree and there is a big strike. If the county council have defined the area for the conciliation committee, you cannot get away from that; but if it is left in the free and open state in which it is left in this Bill, there is nothing to prevent any noble Lord
252
in this House, in the event of a big strike coming, consulting with a certain number of his tenants or adjoining landowners and saying: "We cannot go on with this strike. It is disastrous to all of us. We will call together representatives of ourselves and you will call together men who represent the workmen. If you can only agree there is nothing to prevent your setting up a conciliation committee and settling the strike in your district."
As long as you leave this clause open and free in every way to voluntary endeavour, the Ministry of Agriculture only acting as an aid and adviser, I think your Lordships, if I may say so, will be rightly advised If, however, you think it is a question of the county council knowing the county better than the Ministry of Agriculture, that is not the real question. The question is that tile people who employ in a particular district are people who know what the conditions of labour should be, and what the difference between them and their workmen is. I say, do not for goodness sake put in this Bill an Amendment which will prevent employers and employed in a district being able to go to the Ministry of Agriculture and getting all that they wish. I earnestly hope that the Bill will be left as it is drawn.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I say it respectfully, but the noble Earl does not seem to know the terms of his own Bill. The Bill does not place the initiative on any section of persons within a county. It places the initiative on the Minister, and lain prepared to see it rest with the Minister as long as he obtains that local advice which the council in each county can give him. When the noble Earl says that it is some particular district of a county which has the initiative, that is not the Bill. The Bill says the Minister shall have power, and I think we should make it obligatory on the Minister to take these steps.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1), after "power," to insert "with the concurrence in each case of the agricultural committee or agricultural committees of the council of the county or counties concerned as to the constitution and area of jurisdiction of any such joint conciliation committees." The noble Earl said: I need not make another speech, but I want to answer the remarks of Lord

253
Emmott. I cannot agree with him. I do not think, if my Amendment is carried, that in the practical working of the measure there will be any difficulty whatever of achieving agreement between the Minister of Agriculture and the agricultural committee of the county council in respect of any good scheme. No serious delay is involved, and "concurrence" is necessary for this reason. I am sorry not to be able to adopt the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and accept "consultation." If I knew that the present Minister for Agriculture was always going to be at the Ministry of Agriculture I should be quite prepared to take the word "consultation," but I have no such assurance, and I am not prepared to trust ally unknown Minister of Agriculture in the future as to the recognition of these very important voluntary conciliation committees. If the agricultural committee
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD BLEDISLOEThe Amendment which I now move is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("thereof ") and insert ("of such committees")—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I accept it.
of the county council is to be consulted and its "concurrence" obtained, then I am sure that no body which does not really represent all interests in the county will receive recognition.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, after ("power") insert the said words—(The Earl of Selborme.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If it had been only a question of consultation I think perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could have accepted the Amendment, but with the word "concurrence" in I am unable to accept it.
On Question, Whether the words proposed shall be here inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Bath, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hastings, L.

Camden, M.

Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, M.

Ailwyn L.

Lawrence, L.

Lincolnshire M. (L Great Chamberlain.)

Avebury, L.

Monckton L. (V.Galway.)

Bledisloe, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Salisbury, M.

Clinton, L.

Parmoor, L

Crawshaw, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Denman, L.

Southwark, L.

Mayo,E.

Ebury, L.

Strachie, L.

Midleton, E.

Emmott, L.

Sumner,

Morton, E.

Erskine, L. [Teller.

Terrington, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Vernon, J.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Malmesbury, E.

Dewar, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sutherland, D.

Portsmouth, E.

Faringdon, L.

Gisborough, L.

Exeter, M.Hylton L.

Sandhurst, V. [L. Clumberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Abinger, L.

Illingworth, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L. (L. Valentia.)

Kintore, L. (E Kintore.)

Chesterfield, E.

Boston, L.

Lamington, L.

Clarendon, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Shandon, L.

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

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Lytton, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Wyfold, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to omit all subsections after subsection (1). The noble Lord said: My noble friend behind me (Lord Bledisloe) prefers that I should move this Amendment. It deals with the whole question of the wages boards because, in effect, it leaves out the whole clause. I shall have to deal at some length with this Amendment, to justify myself in desiring to strike out the most important part of Clause 4, but it should be noted that I really strike out only that part which deals with compulsion. That

255
is practically what it conies to. I am justified in saying that, because in the Bill as originally introduced in another place, and as it passed its Second Reading there, the whole of the clause that I am proposing to leave out was absent. It is also a very remarkable fact that when that Bill reached the Report stage, although it had been made to apply to Scotland in the Standing Committee, the feeling in Scotland against compulsory powers was so strong that the Government allowed Scotland to contract out of the whole of that clause, except the first subsection.
What were the arguments used for allowing Scotland to contract out? It wag said that the conciliation boards were not wanted there, unless they were to be entirely voluntary. Curiously enough, the Chamber of Agriculture for Scotland was brought into consultation on this question of the wages boards, although in England the Minister neglected to ask the Central Chamber of Agriculture their views upon it, and merely asked the views of the National Farmers' Union. The National Farmers' Union in Scotland, as well as the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, were unanimously opposed to anything except conciliation boards The Agricultural Labourers' Union in Scotland expressed no dissent, as the Secretary for Scotland pointed out. They were quite prepared merely to have the conciliation boards because they believed entirely in collective bargaining. I never could see why we should not have collective bargaining in England, just as they have in Scotland, because although it may be true that the Agricultural Labourers' Union and the Workers' Union are not as powerful in England as they are in Scotland, on the other hand they have, no doubt, come to stay, will grow in strength, and would be a very valuable asset in dealing with this question on one side or the other. It is surely better that we should have a free play of opinion between employers and employed without any Government interference.
In the past we have had sufficient experience in this country of what lamentable effects Government action has had in interfering with hours and wages. It is not necessary to remind your Lordships what an utter mess and failure the Government made in interfering with the hours of the miners in the coal pits, and how the Sankey Commission upset everything, gave satisfaction
256
to nobody, and was a complete failure. We all know that the outcome of that Commission was the lamentable coal strike that has taken place. I believe that if the employers and the employed had been left entirely alone, and there had been no control in the coal trade, we should not had have that destructive strike, for which I am afraid we are going to suffer for a great many years to come.
As regards the question whether, in this country, the National Farmers' Union agree with this clause, it has been said in the House of Commons that this Union had been consulted, and it was implied that they did agree. On the other hand, we have a resolution of the Council of the National Farmers' Union, and this Council, which is the only body which has a right to speak for the Union as a whole, passed a very emphatic resolution—
"That this Council reminds His Majesty's Government and the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons 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 fulfilment 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 perfectly clear from this resolution what views are held by that great body, the National Farmers' Union, a body which may truly be said to represent the largest majority of farmers, although I do not contend for one moment that it is the only body that represents employers, whether as owners or occupiers of the land. However, it is the most important body in this country representing employers of agricultural labour.
What does that resolution say? It points out that there is no reason why England should be treated differently from Scotland, and it also asks, as has been asked in this discussion before, why the Government should not carry out, in the letter and in the spirit, the statement that has been made time after time, that when the subsidies went the wages boards went too. We never heard any explanation in the House of Commons, nor, when I challenged the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary, with regard to this matter, did he give a detailed and full explanation of this sudden change of front in the House of Commons, after the Second Reading of the Bill, when the Government refused to carry out what was an honourable

257
understanding and bargain—namely, that if subsidies went compulsory wages boards went at the same time. I cannot see that the Minister of Agriculture in the House of Commons ever attempted to explain this extraordinary change of front, and it is the more extraordinary when we reflect that the Minister of Agriculture, when bringing in this Bill, was most emphatic in what he said upon the question of these compulsory wages boards. He said that, undoubtedly these compulsory wages boards had led to unemployment, and many difficulties of that kind. He said that the wages boards were only intended to set up a minimum wage, but on the other hand, we, all know what they did. They standardised wages, and set up a maximum wage, which made it difficult for any man to be employed, except at that standard rate of wage.
As a matter of fact, there was no provision under the late Act, and if you pass this clause as it now stands there will still be no provision, to see that the good and skilful workman gets any better wages than the less competent and less skilled workman. The standardisation of wages has had the effect of disregarding skill and fitness on the part of the worker. That was exactly the position taken up by the Minister in the House of Commons, and so I do not suppose that the noble Earl opposite will say that it is an improper thing that you should have some regard to the fitness and skill of the workman, and not have a standard wage for all classes of workmen.
This Bill also sets up that rigid standard of hours which seems to me to be so inapplicable to agriculture. Nobody desires that agricultural labourers should be employed for too many hours, but working in agriculture is a very different thing from working in a factory. For two or three hours during the day, owing to heavy rain or snow, a workman on the land may be unable to do anything at all, and yet that time comes within his hours of labour, and he is not allowed to make the loss good. Therefore, it seems to me perfectly impossible to do as the Government desire to do now. No one spoke more strongly against rigid hours than did Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen in the House of Commons, but I say that the Government are asking you to set up rigid factory hours and conditions in the country, because
258
these wages boards, if set up, are practically the same as the old wages boards, with this difference only, that the Government officials are not, there.
Now, as regards the general aspect of the case, I should like to say again that we cannot too strongly insist that if you have these wages boards, with compulsion at the back- of them, it is very doubtful indeed whether you will get the farmers in a large number of counties to function this matter at all. I have had an opportunity of speaking to large numbers of farmers, and one and all said that while they were most anxious to set up conciliation boards of a purely voluntary nature, if, on the other hand, there was compulsion as regards the decisions of these committees, they would have nothing whatever to do with them, and would refuse to function this matter. Why cannot the Government go back to their original proposal, which must have had some reason for it, and which was only carrying out the pledge that they had given to the farmers of the country—namely, that if the subsidy came to an end, equally, compulsion should come to an end, and these boards be entirely voluntary?
I believe that if your Lordships continue this clause as it is you will strike a very serious blow at the setting up of these conciliation committees. I dare say the noble Earl opposite knows as well as I do that farmers are a class whom you cannot drive and can only lead. If you leave these conciliation boards voluntary, I am sure there will be no difficulty in getting both sides to meet and go amicably into the matter. No compulsion is necessary, except the compulsion of public opinion, which, in the past, has played a great part. We have a precedent as to that in the case of the railway companies, where the conciliation boards, although there is no compulsion behind them, are acting most admirably. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of the clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Following the course which I adopted on a previous Amendment, I will put the Question in this form: "That the first word of subsection (2) stand part."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The noble Lord has asked why this clause has come into the Bill. It has come into the Bill undoubtedly owing to a compromise. The position was this. Those who represent, or profess to represent, labour in another place, frankly stated that they were determined that the wages boards should continue. Those whom the noble Lord says represent the greater part of the tenant farmers equally declared that the wages boards must come to an end. Undoubtedly, this clause, as it is drawn, is a compromise between the two parties. I will only say this. In the first instance, not only were the Labourers' Union consulted and also the Farmers' Union, but also some of the leading members of the House of Commons on agricultural matters.
LORD STRACHIE: Does the noble Earl say that the Farmers' Union accepted this clause?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not think they care for the clause, but they have accepted it as it stands. It is an agreed clause. They would rather be without it, I admit, but equally the labourers' unions required the wages boards to be kept, and, as I say, this clause does represent an agreement arrived at between the Farmers' Union and the Labourers' Unions concerned. It is on those grounds that it is introduced in its present form. The noble Lord asks why Scotland is not treated in the same way. It is because there the unions representing farmers and labourers take a different view of the matter. The Secretary for Scotland said on this subject that the Farm Servants' Union in Scotland, a powerful homogeneous body, thinks that it can, by collective bargaining, secure better wages for farm servants in Scotland than any wages board can secure for them, and he added:"It is significant to observe that the current rate of wages in Scotland is higher to-day than the minimum wage fixed by the Wages Board in Scotland." We know that that is not the case in England, because, as a matter of fact, the wages fixed by the Wages Board are practically the current rate of wages at this time.
The noble Lord seems to have a strong objection to the continuance of the old members of the wages boards, that is, those who represent the labourers and those who represent the employers. That is done solely with the object of bridging
260
over a gulf, as the Act will come to an end on October 1, and the time is very short for setting up conciliation committees. For a period of two years, or until other conciliation committees are formed this committee will function as a conciliation committee. But here, again, I think the noble Lord draws too black a picture when he speaks of these conciliation committees having rigid hours of work and rigid scales of pay, and not giving sufficient exemptions in certain cases. These committees will have to agree. In the past the Wages Board did not have to agree. The Wages Board always had a majority to decide, and there were always the appointed members: who were able to vote with employers or employed, and cast their decision into one scale or the other, and, having done that, their finding was binding on all concerned.
That is not the case here. There will be no appointed members, and, in order to reach a decision on these matters, there will have to be agreement between employers and employed. If the noble Lord reads further on in the clause he will see that, in the case of their not agreeing, or otherwise if they wish to do so, they can call in a chairman, either with a vote or without a vote. But the decisions of this committee must be unanimous in order that an agreement may be arrived at, and they will have no power to settle anything as regards hours or wages until they are agreed. There is a great difference between that and the old Wages Board, and we regard this clause as of the very highest importance, not only from the fact that it is a form of compromise between the two parties mainly concerned, but also because it bridges over the awkward gulf between the passing of the.Act and the setting up of new conciliation committees. On these grounds I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I think the noble Earl is a little in error in imagining that the district wages committees at present in existence and still less the appointed members of those committees, had any final power of settling wages in the districts in which they operated. As a matter of fact, all they did was to make a recommendation to the Central Wages Board in London, and the order came from the Central Wages Board, and it was not at their discretion at all.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Were not there appointed members on the Central Wages Board?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Yes, but the final word did not rest with the appointed members on the district wages committees.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, but the Central Wages Board, of course, goes. It is not kept in this clause.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I may be in error in interpreting what the noble Earl said just now. If so, I express my regret. But, of course, if in this country the agricultural labourers' unions were as strong as they are in Scotland—and it is very unfortunate that in their opinion, at any rate, they are not—we could scrap once and for all the whole of this Government interference as between master and man in respect of agricultural employment, and very lunch better it would be if we could do so. But, assuming that we cannot do so, and that we cannot absolutely follow the Scottish precedent, surely there are two things that we want to aim at—first of all, at the earliest possible date to discontinue any Government interference with contracts between farmer and workman on our British farms, and, in the second place, to cease at the earliest possible moment the rigid bureaucratic system under which the wages boards and the district wages committees operate at the present time.
I support this Amendment mainly on the ground that Lord Sumner has urged before the House—namely, that the whole of the rest of this clause is so complicated and so unworkable that, unless it is substantially re-cast, it is almost bound to become a dead letter; and, if it does not become a dead letter, it is bound, in my judgment, to create such an amount of feeling and bitterness as between farmers and their employees that we should be better without it. There must, I think, in England and Wales at any rate, be conciliation committees and not a perpetuation of district wages committees; and these committees must exist in every county, not in a few counties only. As the matter stands, under the somewhat complicated scheme which constitutes the remainder of this clause, it is almost undoubted that the district wages committees will continue, without the appointed members, to be the bodies to deal with wages.
262
That is not the object of this Bill. The object of this Bill is to set up conciliation committees with a much greater element of good will and conciliation than there has ever been before, and to bring, as far as possible, master and man into amicable relations one with the other. As the Bill stands at present—and an Amendment is going to be moved on Report on this particular subject—the Minister may or may not take any steps in the matter to set up these conciliation committees. He has the power of doing so, but he may not exercise that power. Again I am not referring, of course, to the particular Minister who is at the head of the Ministry of Agriculture to-day, but the Minister for the time being may or may not act if he chooses, and the whole of this part of this Bill becomes an absolute dead letter. For my part, I support this Amendment mainly as a protest against the complicated, rigid, and unworkable character of the remaining subsections of this clause.
LORD SUMNER: In all the debates in your Lordships' House that I have had the advantage of attending I do not think I have ever heard so remarkable and, may I add, so regrettable an explanation of a Government Bill as that which has been advanced just now by the noble Earl opposite. The residue of this clause proposes that employers and workmen shall not be allowed to make an agreement which suits both of them perfectly well as to employment and remuneration for that employment. None of your Lordships, on however good terms lie may be with any one of his workmen, and however intelligently willing that workman may be to agree, is to be allowed to agree as to employment or wages, nor is the workman to be allowed to agree, except upon terms which are to be fixed over his head, and are to be absolutely compulsory, agreed by voluntary conciliation committees, in the constitution of which the employer may have, and certainly at present has, no fixed share at all.
It is not disputed that this kind of arrangement is not good enough for Scotland and that Scotland will not stand it, but England is asked to submit to it. It is not disputed that if ever there was a perfectly well understood bargain between two classes of the community the first Corn Production Act was that bargain. The consideration for accepting the committee

263
which was to fix wages was the agreed subsidy and the guaranteed price for the grain, and the two things hung together. The only reason given on behalf of the Government for scrapping that arrangement, without any hesitation or apparent feeling of misgiving at all, is that two trade unions have been consulted outside Parliament and, more or less reluctantly on one side, have said something which amounts to an acceptance, and that in another place a bargain has been made—what to do? To undo the bargain which was made by Statute.
In those circumstances I think that many of your Lordships will feel, as Lord Bledisloe has said, that it is our duty by way of protest against this manner of treatment to reject such a thing as that. What is the good of being a second and co-ordinate branch of the Legislature if we are asked to reverse a bargain arrived at a few months ago, upon the bare ground that it has all been settled elsewhere, and that there is no more to be said about it than to ratify something that has been agreed upon by what are called the representatives of those who are interested in the industry? There is no man or woman in the whole country who is not interested in freedom of contract. The introduction of a system by which wages are to be fixed on a large scale and made compulsory by bodies which are not representative bodies, as Parliament is, is the introduction of a new system which a few years ago Parliament would not have listened to and which, in my view, will have the most serious results.
As to the working of the system under this clause, Lord Bledisloe has pointed out that as the Bill stands the Minister shall have power to take such steps as he thinks best adapted for securing the formation of these voluntary committees. It will be a very large undertaking for the whole country because, as has been pointed out, many counties may have to have conciliation committees for different parts of their area. Can anyone say how long the Ministry of Agriculture may take before it succeeds in securing the voluntary formation of a suitable number of committees? It depends a good deal, no doubt, upon the driving force of the Minister of the moment. It depends a good deal, indeed, upon the zeal of the Government, of which he is a member, for carrying out this reform. In the meantime, the wages boards are to go on
264
as before. I will not say absolutely as before, but in substance the wages boards at present existing are to continue under this Bill for the space of two years, unless the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture are so strenuous and so successful that they are superseded by some other institution.
Then, if the joint conciliation committee comes into existence, and if they can manage to agree upon a rate of wages—which I should think very probably they would not, seeing that employers and employees are to vote as two separate blocks and to be set off one against the other—the. Minister may or may not confirm their agreement. If he confirms the agreement the rate of wages then becomes one which forms an implied part of every contract of employment, and it will remain fixed until a new agreement can be arrived at to unfix it. If a further fall in wages becomes desirable, what is the prospect of such an agreement being arrived at as will lead to the reversal of the arrangement which was made in the first blush of the meetings of a conciliation committee?
The scheme is that the people who are members of the two bodies—the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the employees—shall be, in case of any vacancy, made up to their full number by the organisation which represents the employers or the workmen, as the case may be, and which nominated them. Further, that the organisation representing the employers or workmen by whom any member of any such committee was nominated or appointed may at any time appoint another person to be a member of the committee in place of that existing member. That is to say, that every member of these committees is a mere delegate, He may be turned out of his place if he shows too much independence and someone more amenable may be put into his place. Is it at all likely that wages will ever be agreed upon between two bodies so constituted and so likely to be reformed? Is it at all likely that if there is ever a first agreement there will be any further agreement to modify the wages so fixed? What is the reason for leaving in the hands of tile Minister the right to say Aye or No whether the agreement, when arrived at, is to have any application or not?
I cannot but think that the functions of your Lordships' House will be of very small

265
value for legislative purposes, if upon the mere contention that it has been agreed somewhere else and it only remains for us to agree also, a scheme like this—which, as I said before, is unworkable—shall not only be substituted for freedom of contract but shall actually impose upon everybody, whether he be represented or not represented, one uniform, cast-iron system of universal wages for his district, regardless of any particular hours and conditions of employment there may be, and subject to amendment only by going before the committee and persuading it to be so good as to grant some kind of certificate of exemption. I shall vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Lord.
LORD CLINTON: I have no doubt that those who agree with the noble and learned Lord, that the whole of this scheme is unworkable, are quite justified in attempting to put this clause out of the Bill. In the same way I think those who want to make it unworkable are going the best way about it. On the other hand, I look upon this as part of the whole scheme, and as a somewhat ingenious way of getting out of a very difficult position, and I want to see it worked. You are going to get into a position of really great difficulty if, at the very beginning, you allow the Ministry to possess no power to regulate wages or set up conciliation committees at all. We shall be doing a very bad turn to a scheme which is an attempt to set up conciliation and to create good will in the country districts, unless the methods of the Bill are adopted. If there is no continuity with the present wages boards, it is quite certain that in a large number of districts there can be no conciliation committee at work during the period. What will happen during that time it is exceedingly difficult to say, but it does seem a somewhat simple method that the district wages boards which, on the whole, have worked well in the past, should, until other boards are
set up, continue to settle the wages for that district.
LORD STRACHIE: I must press the noble Earl to give me a direct answer to my question How can he say that the National Farmers' Union have agreed to this when on July 20 they said that they wished for complete economic freedom in the event of the withdrawal of guarantees? They went on to say: "The council further sees no reason why England and Wales should be excluded from the freedom proposed to be granted to Scotland." That resolution was passed by the National Farmers' Union. How does the noble Earl reconcile that with what he said?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I can only state now what I said before. I was present at a meeting which was attended by representatives of the National Farmers' Union and of the two chief labourers' unions concerned, and also by several leading members of the House of Commons. I have already said that the Farmers' Union stated they would sooner be without the wages boards. The Labourers' Union—
LORD STRACH1E: What was the date?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I forget for the moment, but, after discussion, the compromise which I have stated was arrived at and agreed to in another place. I can only say, in addition, that it is a little curious in these debates that the moment there is any question that tells against the noble Lord he instantly belittles the Farmers' Union, but when he wants to make a case in his favour, and they help him to do so, then there is nobody like the Farmers' Union.
On Question, Whether the first word of subsection (2) shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents. 11.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to omit "form" ["form a joint conciliation committee"] and substitute "be." The noble Lord said: As the clause stands it is not quite clear whether the district wages committee, until a joint conciliation committee is formed, is to form a joint conciliation committee or actually to constitute a joint conciliation committee. It is not very happy drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("form") and insert ("be").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANC ASTER: Yes, I accept that.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "and the organisation by whom any member of a district wages committee was nominated may at any time appoint another person to act in the place of that existing member and thereupon the existing member shall vacate office." The noble Lord said: This Amendment I must ask your Lordships to take in conjunction with the next one which stands on the Paper in the names of Viscount Chaplin, Lord Clinton, Lord Bledisloe and myself, which is to delete subsection (3). In subsection (3) the word "committee" is used. It is not clear from the wording of the Bill whether it refers to a district wages committee or to a conciliation committee, but if that subsection goes the point need not be dealt with, because my words will come in instead.
The district wages committee is to act whilst the conciliation committee is being set up. Some of the representatives were appointed by the Farmers' Union and some by the Labourers' Union, and some of them who have now full powers as a district wages committee might not wish to work with the new conciliation committee. There should be an opportunity for those to be replaced by their respective organisations. Some of them may remain members
268
and not attend the meetings, and there will be nothing to compel them to vacate their seats. Therefore, their organisation should be able to replace them. It is also possible that certain members may have expressed very strong views one way or the other which would be fatal to conciliation. I hope your Lordships and the Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, at end insert ("and the organisation by whom any member of a district wages committee is nominated may at any time appoint another person to act in the place of that existing member and thereupon the existing member shall vacate office.")—(Lord Dynceor.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I understand that this Amendment is either inspired by, or at least approved by, the Minister of Agriculture or his Department. For my part I venture to hope that your Lordships will give the most strenuous opposition to this Amendment, because, in effect, it perpetuates the same noxious principle which is embodied in subsection (3). Your Lordships will remember that under subsection (3), which some of us desire to excise altogether, that if any member is really conciliatory and desires to effect some compromise between the views of the two parties represented, he is undoubtedly going to be hounded out at a moment's notice by the machine which appoints him. Anything embodying to a greater extent the tyranny of trades unionism it is difficult to imagine. I have no doubt the noble Earl opposite will say there is sonic distinction between the district wages committee and the voluntary conciliation committee in this connection. It is obvious that in a large majority of the counties of England the district wages committee will be the conciliation committee; in fact, until the Minister takes action to set up some different body, it is provided by the Bill that they shall be the conciliation committee and shall have all the powers which this Clause 4 confers upon them in the matter of fixing wages.
As I ventured to put to your Lordships yesterday I would again ask the question, what is going to happen under this Bill?

269
You are going to have a certain number of representatives of the National Farmers' Union on one side of the table and you are going to have a similar number of representatives of the two workers' unions on the other side of the table. There will be no necessity whatever for appointing a chairman, and in most cases I should imagine a chairman will not come to be appointed. Furthermore, each side is to vote collectively, giving one vote and no more. What is going to be the result? If anyone attempts under this new system to express a dissentient view contrary to the dictates of the machine, under this provision embodied in subsection (3), the machine can immediately operate and say: "That man shall hereafter cease to be a member of the conciliation committee." That is not conciliation; that is nothing less than tyranny. I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, because it will in effect be carrying out the noxious principle contained in subsection (3).
But what I particularly desire to draw your Lordships' attention to is that you are superseding in this respect a quite admirable system which already exists, and why should you alter it? Under the present system, as embodied in an order which was issued last December regulating the proceedings of the district wages committees, and which is still in operation, the term of office of an appointed member shall be two years. Of course that now goes, and the term of office of a representative member—that means a member representing either of these trade unions—shall be three years. There is no opportunity there for a man to be turned off a committee because he desires to be conciliatory, or because he expresses a view dissentient to that of the machine which appoints him. It goes on to say—and this is to meet the point put by my noble friend, Lord Dynevor—that every member of the wages board shall have one vote, not a collective vote, but an individual vote. The order continues:"If at any meeting the number members present representing employers and workers respectively is unequal "—that means if one stays away through illness or otherwise—" it shall be open to the chairman, or in his absence, the deputy chairman, to require the side which is in the majority to arrange that one or more of their members shall refrain from voting so as to preserve equality."
270
There, at any rate, you have a system which cannot possibly do injustice to the two different points of view which come to be represented on the district wages board, but at any rate you leave it open to any member of the committee to express his own view, and, if the numbers are equal, to vote according to his conscience and. according to the necessities of the case. I hope you will not support this system of a somewhat intolerant machine which is adumbrated in subsection (3), and, whether it be a district wages board or a conciliation committee properly so-called, you will support the view that this system should not; be abolished.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am prepared to accept Lord Dynevor's Amendment. As I understand, it merely limits the replacement by the different organisations to the interim, committees, and I think that is a wise thing to do. I think it is better that power to fill up vacancies or to alter representations should be limited to the existing committees. It might also be a very necessary thing, on behalf of the different organisations represented, that they should change their representation and have power to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, says the moment a man shows any disposition to come to terms and be reasonable his organisation will promptly turn him out and elect somebody else. That can cut both ways. Personally, I should Lave thought if these new committees are going to be not a wages board but a conciliation committee, the object of their being there would be to try to make terms and come together.
As long as they had these appointed members who, as I said before, were in the position of umpires being able to cast their votes one way or another, it was very important for the Labourers' Union or Farmers' Union to send an extremist to argue the case for them; but when it comes to sending people to a conciliation committee it is probable that instead of the Association doing as the noble Lord suggests, kicking out their peaceful men, the people likely to come to an agreement, and putting hot-heads in their place, in the very nature of things they will try to come to terms. To allow the organisation which has appointed members to the wages board during the period of interregnum to replace members appears to be a desirable thing. The effect would be not to appoint hot-heads but, on the other hand, to select

271
peaceful men who would try to come to agreement. These committees have no powers until they come to terms and make an agreement. It seems to be imagined that those who are to form these committees will be pure partisans and will not try to arrive at any agreement. If they do not, nothing happens. Our hope is that they will come to an agreement, and, instead of taking the opinion of Lord Bledisloe that none but extremists will be sent to these committees, I think there will be a desire, at any rate, towards the end of a strike, to turn the extremists out and replace them by more sensible and more peaceful representatives.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think the noble Earl takes a somewhat sanguine view as to what is likely to happen when he assumes that these arrangements which have been made for voting, not according to the common sense displayed by individuals but according to the ticket of some organisation, will lead to the establishment of a conciliatory spirit. The whole thing is on a wrong basis. If you are to attempt to establish conciliation committees they ought to be freely appointed and composed of people of various modifications of view. It does not matter very much whether people are extreme or moderate if they have to vote under the orders of a particular party. What they have to do is to vote according to the orders of the organisation which sends them. I entirely dislike the plan of a block vote. I believe it to be thoroughly mischievous, and I am sorry the arrangement which has been arrived at, which I can only describe as a backstairs arrangement, with the presumed representatives of one or two organisations, has brought about the adoption of this particular system. I entirely agree with Lord Bledisloe on this matter and I shall support him if he continues to oppose the proposal.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill really answered Lord Bledisloe. The real point is this. How can a man act impartially and moderately in these matters if he is liable to be dismissed at any time by the ipse dixit of the organisation which he represents? You cannot have either judicial or impartial qualities under such conditions. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, as to voting en bloc. To have the power of dismissing a man because he
272
does not obey the views of a caucus appears to be a monstrous proposition.
LORD CLINTON: I find it difficult to understand the object of the Amendment or the subsection which it is to replace. I agree with Lord Parmoor that you are putting the members of these boards in a most intolerable situation if, at any moment they vote against orders, they are liable to be dismissed. I can understand that at the commencement of a new system there might be some alteration in members, but that such a plan should continue for two years is perfectly intolerable, and I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: There is one point on which perhaps I was not quite clear. As I understand it is a question of once only that a member can be changed; that is my information. It is now suggested, in view of the different functions that these committees will have to carry out, that the organisations, if they wish, may change their representatives; and it is considered that they should be allowed to do so.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am surprised that Lord Dynevor, with whom I have great pleasure usually in acting, should have made himself responsible for such an Amendment. Let us consider what an extraordinary proposal it is. In another place this clause was quite proper, as originally drawn, to the effect that if a vacancy occurs in one of the present district committees in the normal way, it shall be filled by the appointment of a member by the organisation by whom the vacating member was nominated. That is quite right. This Amendment does not do what the Earl of Ancaster says—namely, that if they like to make one change they may make it. It puts every single member absolutely at the orders of the central organisation of the body which appointed him. If he in any way acts as they disapprove he is instantly dismissed, and if his successor the following week again incurs the displeasure of the central organisation he may be dismissed, too. I cannot conceive how any self-respecting man would sit in such circumstances. I hope the Amendment will not be carried. There is no such provision in regard to the existing wages boards. The members of the existing wages boards, so far as they are not appointed by the Minister to balance

273
the employers and employed, are representatives, of organisations, but they are appointed for a definite period of years, and hi those years cannot be turned out at the beck and call of their organisations.
LORD ASKWITH: Speaking with some experience of conciliation boards, may I say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken? It would make it quite impracticable for conciliation to work if an Amendment of this nature was in existence. Instead of making for conciliation it would make for discord.
On Question, Amendment negatived.—
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 36 to 42, leave out subsection (3)—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD HASTINGShad on Amendment to the Paper to leave out subsection (3) and insert the following new subsection—
"It shall be the duty of the agricultural committee of the council of the county concerned, to invite all organisations representing agricultural employers or workmen within the area for which it is intended to set up a conciliation committee to nominate persons to represent them on the aforesaid committee, and such nominations shall be accepted by the county agricultural committee, provided always that the number of nominations accepted as representative of the employers and workers' organisations respectively shall be equal."
The noble Lord said: With the approval of your Lordships and of the, Lord Chairman, I shall alter the words on the Paper "the agricultural committee of the council of the county concerned." to "Minister," because the agricultural committee of the council of the county concerned has not been permitted to have any jurisdiction in the matter. In the later part of the Amendment also I shall have to take out the words "county agricultural committee," which appear on the Paper, and insert the word "Minister."
My purpose is, of course, perfectly plain. I desire to lay upon the Minister of Agriculture the duty to consult all organisations which represent agricultural employers or workmen, and not merely those organisations which have somewhat monopolised attention in the past. Some objection may be raised to the use of the
274
word "organisation," because there are undoubtedly a large number of noble Lords in this House and of persons outside who would prefer that the independence of the individual should remain. But I consider that this Amendment gives ample scope, and leaves the Minister perfectly free to summon or call upon individuals to form part of these conciliation committees. It merely makes it obligatory on him to consult all organisations, either now established or to come into being in the future, and not to limit consideration to the organisations which at present exist. The purpose is, of course, to deprive the National Farmers' Union of the monopoly which it now enjoys on the side of the employers, and to make it possible for other labourers' organisations coining into being in opposition to the present labourers' organisations to take part in this work.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, insert the following new subsection:
"It shall be the duty of the Minister to invite all organisations representing agricultural employers or workmen within the area for which it is intended to set up a conciliation committee to nominate persons to represent them on the aforesaid committee, and such nominations shall be accepted by the Minister, provided always that the number of nominations accepted as representative of the employers' and workers' organisations respectively shall be equal."—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I think it is not necessary, and that it is brought forward under rather a mistaken idea as to the functions of the Minister in this matter. I have said several times during the evening that it is hoped that these conciliation committees will spring up voluntarily. It is not the intention of the Minister to invite persons or organisations to set them up, nor is it the intention of the Minister to accept nominations. In fact, the whole point is that persons in the district are to get together, if they wish to form a conciliation committee, and the Ministry will be ready to give them assistance in the work before them. The initiative, however, of inviting people to come and join these conciliation committees, and then of accepting nominations, is not intended to be assumed by the Minister. All he wishes to do is to satisfy himself that the persons who have applied to be members and to form a conciliation committee are

275
persons who represent the employers and employed in that district.
If I may say so, I do not think it is wise or necessary to throw upon the Minister the onus of having to write round to any organisations there may be in different parts of the country asking them to set to work and send representatives to form conciliation committees. The Minister wishes them to act on their own initiative, and, when they have acted, he wishes to help them in every way in the formation of their committees and in their duties, as soon as he is satisfied that they are representative.
LORD CLINTON: I think the object of my noble friend in moving this Amendment is a perfectly good one, and that it should facilitate to a very considerable extent the setting up of these committees. The noble Earl said that it is not the intention of the Minister to accept nominations or to initiate these committees. It is laid down, however, that he is to take such steps as he thinks best adapted to securing their voluntary formation. Does not that imply that he is going to meet organisations for the purpose of getting these conciliation committees set up? Is it intended that he should leave the councils entirely alone and merely wait until nominations are sent in? I do not believe for a moment that conciliation committees will be set up if he takes such a very neutral and aloof attitude. I am not certain that I agree entirely with the wording of this Amendment; I should like it altered in one or two particulars. I do not know whether my noble friend would consider it further, and, perhaps, defer it until the Report stage, to see if it could not be drafted in a different form.
LORD PARMOOR: I entirely agree with what the noble Earl has said, and I should have thought that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment would also agree. The effect of this Amendment, if it is carried, is to make the Minister the real body instead of the advisory body. It is concentration in a very real form, and it is inconsistent with what the noble Earl pointed out earlier in the evening that this sort of duty is not to be thrown upon the Minister, who was merely to act in an advisory capacity, whenever local bodies might come for assistance. I really think that this is inconsistent with the noble Lord's objection to centralised interference.
LORD HASTINGS: As a matter of fact, it is my intention to place upon somebody the duty of initiating these conciliation committees. I tried to do it in another form in an Amendment which was not approved, and I am now hoping to make the Minister responsible for setting them up, because I entirely agree with my noble friend, Lord Clinton, that these conciliation committees will not spring up of their own volition from the various parts of the counties, and that they will require initiative on the part of somebody to set them going. I was hoping the Ministry would do that. I wished, by my Amendment, to make it obligatory upon the Minister to consult all organisations representing employers and employed, not in any way to the exclusion of individuals, before he allowed these conciliation committees to be constituted. In deference to my noble friend's suggestion, that the drafting is not by any means perfect—I do not pretend for a moment that it is—I am perfectly prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that it will be brought up again in a proper form on Report.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If the noble Lord is going to bring this Amendment up in another form, will he be good enough to pay attention to this particular point? The Amendment, as it now stands, makes the Minister invite ever organisation—whatever an organisation may be; I do not know, and it is not defined—to send in nominations, and then it forces the Minister to accept the nominations. Supposing there are a dozen societies all of which send in ten times as many nominations as there are vacancies upon the conciliation committee. The correlative of that is that you force the Minister, in his own name, to turn down 90 per cent. of the nominations he has received. I think that is rather a serious obligation to put upon the Government.
LORD HASTINGS: I quite realise that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Why should the Minister of Agriculture be compelled to say that nine out of ten of the gentlemen whose names have been sent up are unfit? If the noble Lord tries to avoid that particular difficulty, it will be, from the point of view of the Minister of Agriculture, a very great help.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
House again in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONWHITMORE in the Chair.]
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the beginning of subsection (4), to insert "It shall be the duty of such committee as aforesaid to submit proposals to the Minister in relation to a minimum rate of wages." The noble Lord said: Tins is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. I have consulted noble Lords who are learned in the law, and they agree that, although there is a recital or preamble at the beginning of Clause 4 to the effect that it is expedient that the committees should be established for the purpose of dealing with wages or hours of labour, there are no operative words to show what should be actually the duties of these committees. It assumes that their duties have been set
278
out apparently at the beginning of subsection (4) which says—
"Any such committee as aforesaid which has agreed upon a rate of wages ….
There is nothing whatever in the Bill to indicate that it shall be their duty to settle a rate of wages, and in order to carry out the evident object of the preamble or recital, it is necessary that some operative words should be included in the Bill to make clear what their duties are.
Amendment Moved—
Page 4, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not fully understand even now the purpose of the Amendment. The Minister does not propose to accept any jurisdiction for deciding whether a proposal in relation to a minimum rate of wages, or a standard rate of wages, is reasonable or unreasonable. The whole scope of the clause is that the conciliation committees will be formed for the purpose of dealing by agreement with questions of wages, and, being voluntary associations, they can adopt any procedure they like for this purpose. If they think fit they can apply to the Minister under Clause 4 to make the agreement compulsory on all employers in their district, but there is no obligation on the committees to take this course, and it is quite possible that in many cases it will be found that a voluntary rate agreed to by a committee is so generally observed that there is no necessity to take this course. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, because we have heard a great deal about compulsion and the re-establishment of wages boards. He will see that the clause says that the committee "may submit the agreement to the Minister." If the conciliation committee reach a decision and find that decision has been generally observed throughout the district, they are not forced to send it to the Minister at all.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. It would mean practically that all proposals should be submitted to the Minister and he would be appointed to fix wages. The great thing is to have conciliation to produce agreement, and then, if they think fit, they can refer to the Minister. But this would make it possible for the Minister to have all sorts of proposals referred to him, and we are anxious to get rid of control in all forms.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree with my noble friend that the drafting of this paragraph is peculiar. This might be any committee formed for any other purpose, but which happens to agree on a rate of wages. I should certainly have said, had I been drafting it, "Any such committee may agree on a rate of wages." I hope the Government will consider it before the Report stage.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to ease your Lordships' minds on this subject. I do not really mind in what manner this particular preface to the clause is framed. I do not want to have any drastic interference in this matter. All I want is that it should be made perfectly clear what are the duties—possibly the permissive duties—of these committees. The drafting of the clause is so bad that I want the noble Earl kindly to consult his legal adviser to see if it can be put into more correct legal form on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I shall be very pleased to consult the legal advisers to see whether it can be made clearer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn—
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the beginning of subsection (4), after "any," to leave out "such committee as aforesaid," and insert "joint conciliation committee." The noble Earl said: This Amendment was placed on the Paper for the purpose of improving the drafting of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("such committee as aforesaid") and insert ("joint conciliation committee").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD DYNEVORhad on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (4), after "rate of wages," to insert "for a specified period." The noble Lord said: I placed this Amendment on the Paper to raise an important point which was only brought to my notice yesterday. I am not absolutely wedded to the wording of the Amendment, because I had to draft it in a hurry. if your Lordships will look at page 4 of the Bill you will see that it now says in line 2,"the joint conciliation committee "—those are the words that have just been inserted—"which has agreed upon a rate of wages for any class
280
of persons," and there it stops. It refers only to an agreement as to the rate of wages. Later on, in lines 8, 9 and 10, it says—
"the Minister may confirm the agreement and cause the same and the (late from which and the period for which it shall operate"—
Therefore, the Minister is stating and settling the period for which the rate is to operate and the date on which it shall commence. It seems to me that those two things ought naturally to be settled by the conciliation committee when they settle the rate of wages. I do not imagine for one moment that the Minister wants to settle those things; he would much prefer that the conciliation committee should settle them.
If your Lordships are agreeable, I should like to move my Amendment in a different form. Its effect will be to lift up to the second line on page 4 the words in lines 9 and 10, and the Amendment will then read: "after wages" omit "for" and insert"and the date from which, and the period for which such wages shall be paid." Later on, of course, there will be a consequential Amendment in line 9 to omit the words"and the date from which, and the period for which it shall operate." I do not know whether that would be agreeable to your Lordships, and to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but I think it carries out the intention of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, after ("wages") leave out ("for") and insert (" and the date from which, and the period for which such wages shall be paid ").(Lord Dyaevor.)
THE. EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble friend has done a great service in bringing this matter forward, but I venture to submit to him and to the House that even he has not given a complete account of the difficulty in which we are landed. I understand why the Government put this clause as vaguely as possible, and to a great extent I think the whole House is in agreement with them. The Government do not want the Minister to be responsible for rates of wages; nor do your Lordships' House wish him to be responsible for them. The Government want the submission of a rate to come as a purely voluntary action of a suitably representative conciliation committee.

281
Look at what the clause says first of all, and then I will ask your Lordships to see what my noble friend proposes. The clause, is my noble friend quite properly pointed out, says that the Minister is to fix the date from which the rate is to come into effect and the period for which it is to operate—one year, two years, or whatever the Minister may choose. I think your Lordships would object to that. That is not really consistent with the intentions of the Government. My noble friend proposes, as a remedy, that the committee should fix a period. Is that right? That is not the case now with the Central Wages Committee, because a rate is fixed from time to time, and either party is perfectly free to raise the question again whenever they like. Surely we want to leave both the representatives of the employed and of the employers free to denounce an existing rate, and to demand a fresh rate, whenever they like. You do not want to fix a rate for two years or three years, because you do not in the least know what is going to happen. I suggest that some alteration in drafting is required here.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think the point raised by both noble Lords is a perfectly' proper one The wording does require alteration, but it is difficult for me to say, on the spur of the moment, what exactly the Amendment should be. Let me say, first of all, that I think an amendment is necessary to remove doubt on this subject. It is, of course, the custom in every industry to agree on a rate of wages either for a specified period or for the rate of wages continuing in operation until either party to the agreement gives notice to determine it. There would not, in the latter case, therefore, be an agreement for a specified period. My suggestion would be that we should not accept this Amendment, but should insert the word "agreed" before "period" in line 10 when we come to that. That would, I think, make it quite clear that the period for which a rate shall operate must be a period agreed by the committee and not fixed by the Minister. When we get to line 10 I would move to insert, after the third "the," the word "agreed." If that would satisfy noble Lords I think it would be the best way to make it clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You would have to make it apply to the word "date" as well as to the word "period."
LORD DYNEVOR: That would practically be what I have moved, but it does not meet the objection raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, as to not specifying the period. It says "the agreed period," and therefore the conciliation committee will have to come to an agreement for a certain period. I do not know if they can re-open the question again until that period is ended, and my noble friend's suggestion will, therefore, be open to the same objection as mine, because it will not meet the objection raised by my noble friend, Lord Selborne.
LORD BLEDISLOE: May I venture to hope that this matter will be left over till the Report stage in order that it may be carefully considered? I am bound to say that to substitute the word suggested by the noble. Earl would make the reading cumbrous and less convincing than would the insertion of words which my noble friend, Lord Dynevor, suggests. In any case what he suggests is, I understand, that the proposal of the conciliation committee shall include not merely the rate of wages, hut the date from which and the period for which it shall operate. It is an agreement including all these three items. All would have to be provided for. It is those three points as part of one agreement upon which the Minister would be asked to confer. That sounds the simplest method, but in any case I would venture to ask your Lordships, if the noble Earl assents, to allow this matter to stand over to Report to be properly considered.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: On the understanding that the Government will put down an Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not wish to make a decision on this. I only ask whether it would not be for the convenience of your Lordships if the Amendment, which I am informed is the best way to treat this question, to insert the word "agreed" in front of the word "period" in line 10, should not be agreed to now in Committee, and then, if that is found cumbrous or not to carry out what is desired, the question could again be discussed on Report. I am afraid that at this moment it is not very easy for me to decide the best line of drafting, but I think that would be the best course to pursue it is only the insertion of one word, and it is not very cumbrous.
LORD DYNEVOR: The only objection I can raise to the suggestion of my noble friend to put the word "agreed" in front of the word "period" in line 10 is that he is assuming that the conciliation committee will have an agreed period. What will happen if the conciliation committee set up a rate of wages without an agreed period? My Amendment compels the conciliation committee to decide on a period.
EARL GREY: It would not until further notice be an agreed period legally.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. If you like to leave the whole question over till the Report stage for further consideration, be it so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is much sounder to leave it over.
LORD DYNEVOR: I have a good deal of doubt in following the advice of my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, because if this is left to the Report stage and my noble friend the Earl of Ancaster brings up an Amendment, we may not have very much time to consider it, and it is always rather difficult to alter an Amendment on Report. May I suggest to him that he accepts my Amendment, subject to the right of alteration when it comes to Report.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am informed that the Amendment as proposed by the noble Lord is not proposed at the right place, and it is really a question of drafting. I am afraid I cannot accept it. Of course, if he presses the matter, we shall have to divide about it, but I think it would be more convenient if he would withdraw it now and consider the question on Report. Of course, if he is in favour of pressing it we shall have to settle it by a Division.
LORD DYNEVOR: If your Lordships prefer to have it put off to the Report stage and will not go to a Division —
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid that, by a rather disorderly interruption, I am responsible for the suggestion. I can only say this. We are none of us very clear what is the effect of the
284
Amendment of my noble friend who sits behind me, because it is not upon the Paper in the form in which he wishes to move it It makes it rather difficult to see quite clearly what the effect is. I am not at all sure whether the words he proposes will cover all the cases which he himself wants to cover. That may be so. If there is any doubt about it, the simpler plan is to leave it over. I think we have come to the. Conclusion—I appeal to the noble Earl—that the clause does want amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I say that we have an understanding with the Government that the clause will be amended to some extent upon Report.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I admit that it is not clear upon this point and that we shall have an amendment on it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: From that I think my noble friend may be quite sure that the matter will not be overlooked altogether.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved, in subsection (4), before "submit the agreement to the Minister," to insert "if the committee so desire." The noble Viscount said: My Amendment is simply raised because of the interpretation that may be put upon the word "may." We want these boards to act in the most conciliatory manner possible. It seems to me that if, the moment the wages are agreed to, they are obliged to be submitted to the Minister for confirmation and for publication in the whole district, that is rather rushing things too much, and I think you ought to give discretionary power to the conciliation committee to settle how soon they wish the agreed rate of wages to be set up and made compulsory for the district. They may agree to the rate of wages two months before it is sent up to the Minister for confirmation, in order to see if it gives satisfaction all round. I think there should be this discretionary power to the committee to say how soon they will send up the agreed rate which is to become the standard rate of wages.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, after (" may ") insert ("if the committee desire")—(Viscount Galway.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I shall be pleased to accept this Amendment with one slight alteration—namely, that "committee" should be "committees."
VISCOUNT GALWAY: of course, accept that alteration, and will move accordingly.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), before "confirm the agreement," to insert "after consultation with the agricultural committee of the county." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment becomes all the more important in view of the fact that the Government, by a narrow majority, defeated the proposal that the committee should be set tip with the concurrence of the county council. It is suggested in my proposal that any rate of wages which may be proposed by these local conciliation committees, before they are advertised in the district to which they apply, shall be not merely confirmed by the Minister but that the county agricultural committee shall he consulted as to their suitability and applicability to the district. It is, in fact, to avoid all this centralised interference that I. move the Amendment, so that the Minister nay not act upon his own fiat, but with the approval of those who best represent all the agricultural interests in an agricultural area.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the agricultural committee of the county").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. As it is, the Minister has to satisfy himself that the conciliation committee, who have arrived at an agreement, fairly represent employers and employed. Subject to this he will then confirm the agreement and advertise it. I do not see what is to be gained by asking him to consult the agricultural committee before he confirms that order. It may possibly be very disastrous. When the conciliation committee has arrived at terms and asked the Minister to confirm it, some time may elapse before the agricultural committee
286
can be consulted. There will be a certain delay, and fresh circumstances may arise, which might possibly mean that a strike will take place which might otherwise have been avoided. The delay in certain cases may cause disaster and strife, and I hope the noble Lord, when he considers the matter, will not press the Amendment. It must be obvious that the great fear of waiting for consultation with and advice of the agricultural committee might lead to misunderstanding and a breakdown of the negotiations.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Is the case really quite as simple as my, noble friend would make out? He will pardon me if I say that he argued as if the Ministry of Agriculture knew intimately all the circumstances and the varying conditions of every county in England. That is not the case. I have been at the Ministry and I speak with knowledge. They have a good general knowledge, but they have not an intimate knowledge. In my own county, so far as I know, the general feeling is that there should be only one county joint conciliation committee, and therefore the case to which I am going to refer cannot occur there. But some of my friends have told me that they hope there will be several conciliation committees in their counties. If there is no reference to the agricultural committee of a county council in a county like that, you may have one conciliation committee out of half-a-dozen propounding a rate of wages, which the Minister may affirm, with the result of upsetting all the other districts of the county altogether. The strike, which my noble friend fears, will have been caused by the hasty and ignorant (if I may use that word without offence) affirmation of the Minister; whereas if he will go there and have a consultation—and I ask him to remember that this is not a concurrent consultation—the Minister could be assured that they were running no such risk. It seems to me to be a very reasonable Amendment which does not institute any concurrent authority with the Minister but merely takes the precaution that the Ministry knows the facts of the case before it gives its decision.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 25;

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Malmesbury, E.

Dynevor, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Emmott, L.

Sutherland, D.

Gisborough, L.

Bath, M.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton L.

Camden, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Illingworth, L.

Lincolnshire, M.(L. Great Chamberlain.)

Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Lamington, L.

Ancaster, E.

Boston, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Bradford, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Newton, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Clinton, L.

Parmoor, L.

Clarendon, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Shandon, L.

Eldon, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Lytton, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Exeter, M.

Bledisloe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ebury, L.

Redesdale, L.

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

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

Sumner, L.

Hindlip, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Selborne, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Salisbury, M.

Erskine, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E.Donoughmore.)

Monk Bretton, L

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry)

O' Hagan, L.

Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Strachie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Lytton, E.

Gisborough, L.

Exeter, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Hastings, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hindlip, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Illingworth, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Monekton, L. (V. Galway.)

Clarendon, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Eldon, E.

Dynevor, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Ebury, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert—"Provided that it shall be lawful for an employer or workman to determine by two weeks' notice in writing any contract of employment entered into, prior to the specified date, for a term of three months or upwards to which this subsection applies and which provided for the payment of wages at a rate different to the rate payable under the agreement."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment really for the purpose of obtaining information as to the position of those employers who are in the habit of engaging men for a long period, say six months or a year, and who entered into an agreement a few months ago, before this Bill was mooted. Are they to be bound by the rate of wages to which they have agreed until the termination of the year? I am very strongly against breaking any agreement entered into between master and man, and at the same time it is very possibly some hardship, in these entirely changed circumstances, that the employer should be obliged to pay a rate which probably is very much higher than what he is paying to those employed on a different tenure, perhaps weekly servants in his own employ. I think there is likely to be very considerable difficulty between different men on the farm, and possible hardship, and perhaps the noble Earl is able to say how far these agreements will be affected by the rates which the new conciliation boards will bring in.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, after (" agreement ") insert the said proviso—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, because I am of opinion that it goes too far. I can give a case. Supposing that an employer engaged a man at 40s. a week on a three or six months' engagement, and subsequently the conciliation committee fixed the wage at 42s., I hardly think that that should stand; and I do not think it can be quite justified that the employer should be in the position of getting off paying the extra two shillings agreed upon. There is a point in connection with this, however, where a hardship arises, and I will look into it to see whether we can introduce an Amendment on Report which would deal with the cases of exceptional circumstances. The case I contemplate is that of a fanner who bad entered into an agreement with a workman to pay a certain low wage because the man is lame or otherwise not fit. He has agreed to pay the man, we will say, 35s. for a term. The conciliation committee fix a wage of 40s. and, the farmer having explained the circumstances, the conciliation committee refuse to give an exemption, and insist on the full rate being paid. In such circumstances, I think the employer certainly ought to be able to get out of the bargain, or make some other arrangement.
LORD CLINTON: I put forward this Amendment only for the purpose of ascertaining how far these long engagements were affected by the subsequent decisions of the conciliation committee. What I understand is that they are not affected in any way, and the agreements still stand.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I take it that the arrangement which exists at the present time will continue, and that it

289
will be possible for conciliation committees to give exemptions, just as district wages boards are giving them now. Will that not be the case?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Whatever the conciliation committee fixed as the new rate would be the implied rate of the contract When the conciliation committee settled 42s. instead of 40s. the 42s. would be a term of the contract, and that amount would have to be paid.
LORD CLINTON: Although the agreement had been entered into before?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes; or, at any rate, he would have to give notice.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I wish my noble friend would make this perfectly clear. The ease I understand Lord Clinton to raise is that of an agreement of three or six months, or a year. Does that agreement hold good, or does it not hold good, if the rate of wages is fixed afterwards? Supposing the rate is fixed afterwards and the rate is then lower than the contract, is the contract altered to the disadvantage of the workmen? And suppose the rate is fixed higher than the contract, is it to remain to the disadvantage of the employer?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes.
THE EARL, OF SELBORNE: That is the ease.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In answer to my noble friend behind me, the case of the infirm man is dealt with in the next subsection; that is not the point we are considering now.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I understand that the answer is, and that we have it clearly now, that if a new rate of wages is fixed, and that new rate is to the advantage of the employee, he gets the advantage of it.
TI1E EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If it is not to the advantage of the employee it does not affect King?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That is the case.
LORD CLINTON: Is not that an extraordinary position? Surely there ought to be one rule for both parties. I should prefer that the arrangement should stand, because it is a definite contract equally affecting both. I do not think it ought to be in favour of the one and against the other.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sorry to pursue this subject, but if you look at the wording of the clause, it says—
"it shall be an implied term of every contract for the employment after the specified date of a workman of any class to which the agreement applies"—
that is to say, the moment that the wages are increased, ('very existing contract is to be affected prejudicially to the employer, assuming the wages to be raised.
THE EARL, OF ANCASTER: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: But assuming the wages to be lowered, the contract for a considerable period would still hold good?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I should very much like to know how the noble Earl defends that proposition as a reasonable bargain between employer and employed.
LORD HASTINGS: Is it not a fact that no such contract as that referred to by Lord Clinton could have been entered into unless a certificate of exemption was granted by the wages board
LORD CLINTON: Before this Act was passed—last month.
LORD HASTINGS: Precisely; before this Act was passed. With the dissolution of the wages board and the power which they now possess to establish a certain rate of wages for any part of England, do not their exemption certificates also come to an end and do we not start de novo? If a man has been exempted by a district wages board on account of certain infirmities and his employer wants to enter into

291
a contract to pay him a lower rate than that fixed or customary in that district, surely an application must be made to the newly-formed committee for a new exemption certificate. Is it not the fact that his contract would come to an end automatically on the dissolution of the wages board which gave the exemption certificate which enabled him to be paid at that particular rate?
EARL GREY: I think the noble Lord has missed the point. This may refer to future as much as to existing things. In my own county of Northumberland men are engaged by the year and I hope we shall go on doing it in the future, but in future years there may be a variation at any time; a drop in wages may be agreed to by a conciliation committee in the course of the year. It is the noble Lord's defence on that subject—how he defends the workmen having the advantage of a rise and not the disadvantage of a fall—that we wish to hear.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think the answer to the point raised is that the employers would have to agree to that on the conciliation committee before occasion arose. If there is a conciliation committee they would have to agree to the fall unanimously.
EARL GREY: I think that would meet the case in Northumberland, because all our men are taken on by the year in a county where they are not all taken on, but only a small proportion, I do not think that would meet the case at all. It would not meet the case of a landowner who took on certain men by the year when the normal practice of the farmers was not to do so.
THE EARL OF ANCASTERSurely that is a case which these conciliation committees would consider. Take a case like that of Lincolnshire, where it is not the usual thing to engage men for the half-year or the year. There is a. hiring for servants every six months, but there are a large number who are only taken on for the week. I should think that state of things exists also in a good many other counties, and I cannot help thinking that a conciliation committee, on which there would be employers perfectly aware of these circumstances, would consider the case of these men engaged for six months, and would be aware that if they lowered
292
the wages it would perhaps be an unfair thing upon the employers who had agreed with men for six months. I think it is one of those things which conciliation committees, with a knowledge of the circumstances in their district, would consider before they came to an agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What does the noble Earl suggest that the conciliation committee would do? There would be an employer who had agreed to pay a certain rate of wages for a period; before that period has elapsed the wages are lowered; does the noble Earl suggest that the wages conciliation committee would make an exemption in favour of a particular employer, because he was placed in a difficult position
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, I do not think they would make an exception in an individual case, but I think they might except a certain class of people who had been engaged for six months or for it year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, at the "end of subsection (5), to insert—" Provided that. wages shall not be recoverable under this subsection unless proceedings for such recovery shall have been commenced before the expiration of six months after the date when the wages became due." The noble Lord said: Subsection (5) lays it down that when a rate of wage has been agreed upon by a conciliation committee it shall he an implied term of every contract that that wage shall be paid. The object of my Amendment is to limit the time to six months within which an employee can sue his employer for the difference between the wage he is receiving and the wage settled by the conciliation committee. If your Lordships think six months is not a desirable period—and you may think it is too long—I am quite ready to alter it. But I think we must carefully consider the position of the employee on this question. I know that your Lordships do not wish to be hard on the employee, but on the other hand we have to take into consideration the risk that a farmer may be running in employing an old labourer at rather a low rate of wage. If the farmer thought he would be penalised later on, and have to pay a large sum in arrears, I. am afraid he would think twice before He took on an old labourer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, after (''agreement") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Dynevor.)
LORD CLINTON: I agree with the noble Lord that there must be some limit to the time during which a possible claim may be made against the employer. I think my noble friend's argument is correct in that respect. If you lay too great a risk on the employer lie is not likely to engage any number of necessitous cases, but I think six months is too long a period. We are presuming that the parties have agreed, and that for some reason or other the man breaks his agreement because he has found that his wages are too low. But if they are too low, surely he must have found that out long before the period of six months has elapsed. I have an Amendment later which deals with a. somewhat similar subject, and I do not want to go into the full argument now. But I merely state that I think the period of six months would 'really be better reduced to three months, because that is quite sufficient time for a man to know whether he has been badly taken in by an employer or not.
LORD DYNEVOR: I would like to point out to your Lordships that while six months may sound rather a long time, if a farmer employs an old man and the rate of wages he pays is or below what the conciliation committee settle, 5s. for sir months would only really mean £5 or £6.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: We will accept the Amendment, if the noble Lord will accept three months instead of six months.
LORD DYNEVOR: I will agree to that.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is in the form as printed, subject; to the alteration of"six months"to"three months."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (6) (b), at the beginning, after "where, on an application," to insert "by either an employer or a workman.'' The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment want to make it quite clear on the face of the Bill that where a certificate is applied for in the case of what I may call' an abnormal
294
employee, such certificate may be applied for both by the employer and by the workman.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, after ("application") insert ("by either an employer or a workman'').—(Lord Bledisloe)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert—
"Provided that a workman shall not be entitled to recover arrears of wages at the rate agreed by the Committee except in respect of a period not exceeding six weeks next preceding the commencement by the workman of proceedings for the recovery thereof.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of a somewhat similar nature to the one just accepted from Lord Dynevor. Lord Dynevor's Amendment was to limit the time during which art employer could be sued by his men who have accepted wages below the standard rate. This Amendment is for the purpose of limiting the amount of arrears of wages for which a man can sue Iris employer in the courts. We are dealing with a matter in which an employer has made an agreement with Iris man for a fixed wage less than the standard wage, on account of some infirmity of the man whom he employs. The agreement is a definite one, but in the course of time the man thinks that his wages have been fixed too low and he sues in the court. Occasions will occur somewhat frequently of these employments at a lower rate of wages, largely for quite short periods, very often perhaps in front of the harvest, when neither employer nor employed can afford time to go to the conciliation committee, or possibly even if they go to the conciliation committee, the committee may disagree, and they will not make up their minds to go to court in the first instance. These engagements will probably continue because [wither side will care to move, and two or three months afterwards the man may be persuaded by some friend that he is getting too low a wage, and that it will be worth his while to try his luck in the court so that he may perhaps get something out of his employer. I think that what he gets out of court should really be limited to arrears of even a lesser period than my noble friend has carried in his Amendment. I suggest; six weeks would be sufficient.
There are two or three cases of importance that come under this. One probably

295
might lay down the principle that these engagements ought never to be broken at all, and if a man be engaged for a certain sum he ought to accept it. But it is possible, particularly in agriculture where labour is very isolated, that a man may be imposed upon and may be forced, by the difficulty of getting any employment at all, to accept a low wage. Therefore, one may admit that it is reasonable, in a limited number of instances, that agreements may fairly be broken. But there are other eases where they may be deliberately broken. A man may accept a very low wage actually for the purpose of getting employment, with the intention some weeks later of applying to the court to have his wages raised, and the difference between the amount he has agreed and the standard wage, or such wage as the court may fix, being paid to him. He could do this for the purpose of getting employment, after having accepted a low wage and cutting out some better man, who perhaps held out for a reasonable wage. I do not think such a course should be encouraged. But it does exist, and I suggest that the man should not be allowed to recover more than a sum equivalent to six weeks' arrears of wages.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I agree that there should be some limitation and if the noble Lord will accept the same period as Lord Dynevor, and make it three months, instead of six weeks, I shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: One feels reluctant, in discussing a matter of this kind, to have the appearance of arguing against a workman having a reasonable right to recover where he has been over-persuaded, perhaps by his employer, to accept a lower rate than the rate of wages prescribed by the conciliation committee. I should be the last man to desire to have the appearance of being in any way against the agricultural working class. But what is in my mind is really the interests of the agricultural class. I know of a large number of men, perhaps abnormal is not the right phrase to use, less efficient workmen who have worked for me, and I have no doubt for many of your Lordships. It does not matter so much to the fairly rich man.
296
In every one of these cases we cannot afford to give them the full rate of wages; they are not worth it as the men do only half a man's work. We, therefore, agree with them on a lower rate, but we should do so with the possibility hanging over our heads at every moment that they may go to the conciliation committee and claim three months' -arrears of the difference between the rate of wages agreed upon between us and the rate of wages prescribed by the conciliation committee in the case of many of your Lordships you might be willing to run that risk, although if you have a number of less efficient workmen it might be a serious matter.
When one is not thinking of the benevolent landowner but of the farmer who has to consider every shilling, and rightly so, the question is: What will be do? I feel very little doubt that in almost every case the farmer will say that he will not employ the less efficient man at all with such a risk hanging over his head. The fact that he may be called upon to refund £3 or £4 to the workman may be such a risk that he will say he will not employ him. He may be an old friend, but the farmer will say that the Legislature has interfered and has imposed conditions so unfair that he cannot employ him any longer, and that he will employ none but first-class workmen who are worth the wages fixed by the conciliation committee. It appears to me to be an almost necessary result, and I believe that under the law, as it is at present administered, the effect of these compulsory wages has been precisely that. That is confirmed by noble Lords, and I am sure it is so. Farmers up and down the country say: "We simply cannot employ this kind of labour, they must go and starve, they must go into the workhouse. We are sorry—"
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: At the high rate?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No doubt; the noble Earl is very fair in his comments. But he will recognise that the mischief will exist, though in a lesser form, under the provision as the Government have proposed to agree to it. I would plead for these less efficient workmen. They are in a pitiful case up and down the country. W by should they not have a fair chance of being employed They really earn a less rate of wages, without that' risk hanging over the employer's

297
head which will cause him to abstain front employing them. I do not want to press the matter too hard; for fear of appearing to be against, the workmen; but really the whole point of my argument is in favour of the workmen, and is intended to benefit them. I hope the noble Earl will see that he would do much more wisely to accept the Amendment of Lord Clinton, a ml to allow the Bill to go through in that form.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: It is very difficult to resist this appeal, but, there are two points which I should like noble Lords to consider. We have conceded that three months should be the period for suing, and I think that the period for recovering wages should be the same. The noble Marquess makes out a great case for the enfeebled or the incapacitated man, who will be thrown out of employment because people will be afraid of employing him at a lesser wage. I should like noble Lords to understand that the employer who is afraid that he might be sued later on, and have to pay this considerable amount, can always get out of the difficulty by sending the agreement to the conciliation board and asking them to consider the case. I think that will meet the case to a very large extent. It is very hard to resist the Amendment, but, in view of those two facts, I should much prefer three months instead of six weeks.
LORD HINDLIP: I hope the noble Earl will depart from his present attitude. He talks as if every small farmer and small holder is going to know every detail of this Act when it has passed both Houses of Parliament. They are going do nothing of the sort. Noble Lords have been talking gaily of 40s. a week and 35s. a week. The country, in the next few months, is possibly going to be faced not only with the great agricultural crisis to which Lord Clinton referred, but also, very likely, owing to the rate of taxation, with absolute disaster. I beg the noble Earl to reconsider the question of these old men, who are very likely enittlop7d by the poorer farmers, to whom £3 or; £4, or £.5 is a very great consideration. It is not a question to my mind of whether a man is going to be employed at the rate of 30s., or 40s., or 50s. a week, but of whether he is going to be employed at all.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I hope the Government will not give way to this
298
Amendment I have been chairman of the district wages board in Devonshire since its formation. This is the third biggest county in England, and practically its sole industry is agriculture. There is no difficulty whatever in this matter. Before engaging an infirm workman, a man of low physical strength, the farmer merely has to apply for a permit of exemption, and on getting it, he engages the man, and the man remains in his employment so long as the permit lasts. We grant permits all over England, I think, for different periods; in some cases for six months. There is really no reason why this difficulty should arise at all. Let the farmer apply for a permit; and then he is perfectly safe.
EARL GREY: Of course there is no difficulty in getting a permit if the farmer applies for it. But the difficulty is that the farmers in the majority of cases do not take the trouble. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill says it is quite easy to apply to the conciliation committee, but that is not going to be. in permanent session. Very likely it will not meet more than once a month, and if an old man comes along the day after a. meeting it will be impossible to get a permit for allot her month. I hope the. Amendment will be accepted.
LORD HASTINGS: May I also plead with the noble Earl to give way on this Amendment.? In villages in the neighbourhood in which I live I know of not a few but a dozen old men who have been discharged because the farmers are unable to pay them a rate of wage which they are not worth. In every one of those cases a permit could be obtained, but that would involve trouble and expense, and the farmers will not go to that trouble and expense, quite apart from the odium which these applications bring upon them from the local Labourers' Union. They prefer to take the least line of resistance, which is to dispense with the services of these old men. The result is pitiable, and I plead with the Government on behalf of these old men, who are invaluable on the farms and who must live, and who deserve to live, on the farms. Anything which your Lordships can do to make it easy for these men to be employed is well worth doing, and from that point of view I beg the noble Earl to give way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line:3, leave out ("Any such committee as aforesaid'') and insert A joint conciliation committee").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, in subsection (7), to omit '' or may agree to such an appointment being made by any Government department or other body." The noble Earl said: This subsection deals with the power of the conciliation committee to appoint an independent chairman, and it says that "any such conciliation committee may appoint an independent person to act as chairman, or may agree to such appointment being made by any Government Department or body." My Amendment is to leave out the second alternative, and I ask your Lordships to accept it for this reason. In the first place I do not think it is necessary in order to enable a conciliation committee to secure an independent chairman. I agree that it would be an advantage in the majority of cases if conciliation committees had independent chairmen, but I do not think it would be an advantage to have independent chairmen forced upon them. They can take action themselves to secure an independent chairman. If the words which I propose to omit are left in it is possible for the Minister to try to bring pressure to bear upon a committee to accept a particular chairman. I am not saying that that is likely to happen; but one can never tell, and I do not see why conciliation committees should be exposed to any such pressure.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out from ("chairman") to ("and") in line 6.—(Earl Grey.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not think that this Amendment is necessary. These committees are purely voluntary bodies, and, if they agree, they may appoint a chairman. If they know of no suitable man, and yet require someone to bring them together and prevent a strike, they "may agree to such an appointment being made by any Government Department or other body." They have got to agree to it; it is no question of a Government Department trying to force their nominee on these committees. it is a question for the committee alone.
EARL GREY: I agree, if the case were as the noble Earl points out. But I do not
300
think it is. It is not necessary that the conciliation committee should appeal to the Department. It is open, without any initiative from the conciliation committee, for the Minister to put pressure on them to accept an independent chairman, and that is what I want to avoid.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Surely my noble friend is misreading, the clause. The object of these words is to give complete liberty and flexibility to these committees ill relation to the selection of chairman. The subsection at first says that they may appoint, if they please, an independent person to act as chairman. If they do not do that, they may agree to ask the Government to appoint a chairman.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The subsection says.—
"or may agree to such an appointment being made by any Government Department or other body."
In other words, nothing can be done without their antecedent consent. They may ask the county council, or the Royal Agricultural Society to do it for them if they do not want to appoint their own chairman; they can also apply to the Ministry of Agriculture or the President of the Board of Trade, or any other body. Having done that, there is complete liberty left to determine what the powers of the chairman will be.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is hard to apprehend the purpose of these words. One may assume that if any Department is applied to for nomination of a chairman it will be the Ministry of Agriculture. It is hardly to be supposed that the Admiralty or the Royal Mint would be applied to for this purpose. I do not understand why the noble Earl cannot agree to omit the words altogether, as I cannot think that the conciliation committees would require this degree of guidance.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It reduces their liberty of action. But if the noble Marquess wants to do that the words can come out.
EARL GREY: Will these words do— or may apply for such appointment to be made"?
LORD BLEDISLOEIt would seem that those who sit on the front bench opposite are not arguing from the same stand-point as those who sit on this side of the House. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that this actual process might arise when the members of the conciliation committee failed to agree—meaning thereby, not upon the chairman, but on the matter under discussion by the committee —and feared that a strike or something of the sort might occur.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Hear, hear.
LORD BLEDISLOE: That is a totally different condition to that which would arise when they came to appoint a permanent chairman who would sit continuously with theist as their chairman. It looks to me as though both conditions ought to be provided for. It is quite possible that they nine at the outset select a chairman to sit continuously with them, to use his moderating influence and to enable them to come to an agreement on questions of wages. On the, other hand, some committees may not agree to appoint a chairman and may sit without one. But they may fail on occasion to agree on a matter of substance in relation to wages, and in order to avoid a strike may call in some outside person ad hoc to give his independent view after listening to the reasoning on both sides. It appears to me that there are two sets of circumstances contemplated by this clause. If so, it ought to be made to say so, and in the later case it is meant to apply where there is no normal continuously-sitting chairman, but. it is desirable to appoint one ad hoc to decide matters of difference between the members of the committee.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If the noble Lord is anxious to have those words, I will accept them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (7), after "chairman," where that word firstly occurs, to insert "without the power to vote." The noble Lord said: Although I should infinitely prefer to see it made obligatory upon the committee to appoint a chairman, I see some difficulty in the fact that there is only what one may call one independent person, who is almost
302
bound, in certain circumstances, to become a partisan, if he is not so at the outset. For that reason, in order to try to induce these bodies, in the interest of conciliation, to appoint a chairman, I should like to make it clear that this chairman would not in any case have a vote, but that he shall be there in order if possible to reconcile conflicting opinions as between the employers and the workmen so as to come to an amicable agreement. With that object in view I move my Amendment, to be followed by a consequential Amendment to omit the subsequent words "and the chairman may be appointed with or without the power to vote."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after ("chairman') insert ("without the power to Vote" ).—(Lord Bledisloe)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. One of the objects of the Bill is this. If the committee wish to appoint a chairman they shall be allowed to appoint a chairman and to do so under what conditions they please. It is quite obvious, I should think, that there will be occasions on which the representatives of the employers alai of the employed will not agree and will reach a deadlock. They will then say: "Let us have a chairman in. Let us appoint a chairman to try to bring us together." It may be the opinion of the committee that the chairman should act only as a kind of go between, to keep order and to try to bring them together. Again, the committee may consider that it would be better to have a chairman who could vote. If such a chairman was appointed he would practically act as an arbitrator.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: He would.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: We do not want to stop that. We wish to encourage it. If these two parties cannot come together or come to terms, it is quite possible and reasonable that they would say: "We cannot agree amongst ourselves; let us call somebody in to act between us." You may call him a chairman, but he would act as an arbitrator-chairman with a vote. He would be in the position of an arbitrator, of course, and I think it would be a thousand pities to prevent such a thing taking place.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Does not the noble Earl think that if the committee find it difficult to agree on the point at issue, they will find difficult to agree on the chairman
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am not very well acquainted with councils and trade disputes in the past, but I know it is not an unusual thing in trade disputes to call in someone to act as chairman and as conciliator. I do not know exactly what power he has. I believe there was a case in the county in which I live where a dispute took place between certain manufacturers and their workpeople, and an independent chairman was called in. It was in the town of Perth, and I think I am right in saying that they went outside themselves and called in a member of your Lordships' House to act as arbitrator between them. The noble Lord who was thus called in had practically no interest or knowledge of the trade, or of that particular dispute. They looked upon him as an impartial person. I do not think that is an unreasonable way sometimes of bringing people together. In this case, the committees need not adopt it unless both parties agree.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: If you once allow the chairman to have a vote, it will seldom happen that the two parties will agree. The chairman, when they do not agree, will be the person who has to fix the rate of wages. That seems to me to be a very dangerous thing to allow. If it is to be a conciliation board, it would be much better that the wages should be agreed to by the respective parties. If you allow the chairman to come in and have a casting vote, it will be the worst form of settling a wage dispute that you could have. The chairman would either be a partisan of one side or the other, or he would draw a middle line between the parties, and give a decision which would give satisfaction to no one.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot too strongly support what my noble friend, Lord Galway, has said, and I implore the Government to believe that in this matter we want exactly the same thing as they do. We want these conciliation committees to be a great success. Of what are the Government running the risk if you appoint a chairman without a casting vote? You have in that case an element of permanent
304
conciliation whose influence can be exerted on both sides in favour of moderation. But if once you give him the value of it vote, what takes place? Each side becomes extreme in its demands. The employers go for the lowest possible wage, the employed go for the highest possible wage, knowing, if it comes to the decision of the chairman, that he is almost sure to divide the matter between them. Therefore, the whole element of conciliation, which is the gist, the marrow and the absolute ideal of the plan, is lost and destroyed from the beginning. I have the utmost possible confidence—I never was speaking with more truth than at this moment— when I say: If you want these committees to be the greatest possible success do not allow a chairman to be appointed with a vote. If they want an arbitrator, let them appoint one. There is nothing to prevent them saying: "We cannot agree; we will appoint an arbitrator." But do not let him be the chairman of the committee.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Earl does not mind an arbitrator so long as he is not called chairman?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am talking of the standing chairman of the committee.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: These committees are complete masters of I their own procedure.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You are giving them a lead here.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Not a lead, but an option. The whole object is to make these committees as flexible and as autonomous as possible. The whole object of noble Lords during the last twenty minutes has been to limit, curtail, and impair the freedom of these committees. I think that is a great pity. Just now we excluded words entitling these committees, if they thought fit, to appeal to the Government or to their county council to find a chairman for them.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: They can do it if they choose. You have given them leave.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Having stated in the Bill that they shall have leave to do it, and than having cut out those words from the Bill, I assume your Lordships do not mean them to have or to exercise that power. That is curtailing their power.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is a chairman with a vote.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If they want to have a chairman with a vote, why should they not?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think it is very dangerous.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I give an experience? This is not a new problem. Lord Crewe very well remembers the crisis of 1893, when Lord Rosebery came in as chairman not with an official vote but technically with voting power. Having settled the great coal strike, conciliation committees were set up all over the country covering the Federated Area, with possibly a. small exception in Scotland. For twenty years we had exactly the same procedure laid down there. Both parties met with an independent chairman —Lord St. Aldwyn was a chairman for years—with complete power to vote. Lord Selborne says each party puts forward its extreme claim. Of course it does. Each party is equally going to put forward its extreme claim if the chairman has not a vote.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Nobody diminishes his claims just because the chairman has or has not a vote. People in commerce put forward their maximum claims, and they do not diminish their claims on a point of etiquette. If we allow these committees to do what they please they will do the right thing. In some cases they will give their chairman a vote; in other cases they will refuse it; but they will have the responsibility. What we want is to make these people have that full sense of responsibility of authority not to make the county council a court of appeal as was suggested just
306
now, not to make the Government responsible, but to invest these conciliation committees with maximum personal responsibility. If so, I am confident they will work, but if we cut them down in every possible way we shall reduce their direct interest in these things, and then I think the danger of their not working will be very greatly increased.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot help thinking that the analogy which the noble Earl has just mentioned, although an interesting one, fails if it is applied to this particular matter. In order to find what would be called an impartial person in this matter of agriculture, it would have to mean that some person altogether unconnected with the land in every relation had to be brought in as chairman in the sort of case which the noble Earl mentions. That is not, I take it, contemplated by His Majesty's Government or by those who considered this matter of agricultural committees. It would be assumed, I think, that a person who was called in to give advice or to make a decision upon the rate of wages would be a person who, from one standpoint or another, was skilled in agricultural matters. if he is not, I confess I am rather, sorry for him if he should attempt to come to a conclusion on the rate of wages.
The case of the collieries to which the noble Earl alluded is surely on a somewhat different footing. It would be quite possible to find a man trained in business who, at the end of an inquiry, would be able to give quite a sound opinion on a difficulty or dispute relating to mining wages. I question very much whether, when it comes to settling the average wage for a county with its varying circumstances, you would find any person competent to do that if brought from a different sphere of business. But if you are to have a so-called impartial chairman, he has to come with some knowledge of the subject. He must belong to one class or the other, and he will start with the initial prejudice against him of some body of persons whose interests will be affected by his vote. Consequently I adhere to the view that it would be far safer to leave the chairman to preside without the dangerous prerogative of being able to give a final decision, if, as would often happen according to the proposed constitution of these committees

307
the voting is divided on a difficult question affecting the interests of one side or the other.
LORD HINDLIP: It seems to me that the whole question of conciliation in agriculture is being lost sight of. It does not matter a brass farthing whether coal is dug in June or July. But in agriculture the object of these committees is to avoid strikes. If there is to be delay in the appointment of the chairman, the cows have still to be milked and the harvest gathered. These things cannot wait. I do not see how in an emergency the chairman is going to do very much good at all.
LORD ORAWSHAW: I think it would be much better for the chairman not to have a vote. Many cases will occur which will have to be referred to the chairman. If the committee had power to call in an arbitrator they would generally settle the questions themselves before they did so. It would be much better that the chairman should be independent without a vote; otherwise, everything will be referred to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let me emphasise in one sentence the point that the Earl of Crawford appears to have missed. There is all the difference in the world between an organisation which consists of two, and an organisation which consists of three. That is the real difference. Employers have one consolidated vote, and the employees have one consolidated vote. That is, there are two votes. If the chairman has a vote, that will make three votes. In the two-vote system you must have agreement. Otherwise there will be a deadlock. That is the whole theory of conciliation, that you should get them to agree. Then there is the impartial chairman, who says:"You must come to some arrangement. I suggest this and that." That is conciliation. When you have three votes it is a question of a majority, and you will not get conciliation at all.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of subsection (7), to leave out "and with such other powers as the committee may determine." The noble Lord said: This is not an important point. I move to omit these words largely in order to find out what is really contemplated. The words
308
Are extremely vague and Very wide, and I should have thought that as the House has apparently decided that the chairman is simply to be a peacemaker, it is unreasonable to give him wider powers than are apparently contemplated. I should like to know what is really intended.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, leave out from ("vote") to the cud of the subsection.—(Lord Bledisole)
THE EARL OF ANCASTEB: I agree to this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Lord said: I desire to move the omission of this subsection because I object very strongly on principle to separating these two bodies, who are to meet together to try and come to an amicable arrangement, into two watertight compartments, each of then giving one collective opinion on behalf of the class to which they belong. In these days, when we are all doing our best to bridge the gulf between the different classes, and, above all, if possible, to do away with class consciousness, we are here stereotyping that difference in a very marked manner, by giving these gentlemen a block vote on either side of the table.
All I would suggest to the Government is that, if they have in mind, as has been suggested in the course of the debate this afternoon, the possibility, which arises under the present system of district wage.s hoards, of a certain member of the committee on either side being absent through illness or for some other cause, that the same procedure should be adopted as is already provided for by the Government in their Regulations made under the existing Act. I do not know that I need read it, as I have already done so this afternoon, but, it is to the effect that where one or more persons belonging to either class is or are absent, arrangements shall be made that the person or persons who are absent be balanced on the other side by an equal number of votes. But the main purpose of my Amendment is, of course, that each person shall be entitled to vote individually, according as his reason and his conscience may dictate, without being necessarily compelled by the machine behind him to give a collective vote, and so promote class disagreement rather than conciliation.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 9 to 11, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I ant afraid I cannot: accept this Amendment. This is not the practice in all the Whitley Councils; and the practice laid in the Bill appears to be absolutely consistent with the principles of collective bargaining. To have a go-as-you-phrase' vote on these questions would not, I think, be satisfactory. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which is quite contrary to all the practice of 'Whitley Councils of a similar nature.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I can appreciate the position of the noble Earl, lint at the same time I cannot help regretting that His Majesty's Government are not able to give more of a hearing to this proposal. It is, of course, a well understood system in the workmen's organisations that every man comes as a delegate, and with the absolute necessity laid upon him of supporting a certain line of action. It has it been the practice with regard to other organisations. It would be difficult, for instance—I mention it casually—for the Central Landowners' Association, supposing they were represented on the committees by three or four members, to expect every member to say absolutely "ditto'' to the others. It would be contrary even to our Party practice. Those who are most obedient to the Party whips from time to time feel entitled at any rate to make an exhibition of independence, even if they do not carry it very far, and it is, I think, very unfortunate that in this matter tile practice of voting en bloc should be absolutely stereotyped and receive the sanction of Parliament.
I can well understand that if the contemplated arrangement had been different there would have been a strong case for sonic such arrangement as this. if it had been laid down, for instance, that the representatives of the workers must he men actually themselves engaged in agricultural employment, it is evident that if the district were large it might often happen that one or another of them might not be able to attend, but that, is carefully safeguarded by the provisions' of the Bill. Either landowners or occupiers may be represented by people who do not occupy or farm an acre of land. Equally the workers' organisations may be, and undoubtedly
310
will be, represented by persons who are not agricultural labourers and have never engaged in farm occupation at all. That is carefully provided for by the Bill. That being so, it seems to me that the necessity for this block vote is greatly diminished, because it cannot be argued that any set of persons are likely to be disabled front attending the meetings of committees by reason of their being engaged in actual work. I gather that the Government are not likely to accept my noble, friend's. Amendment, but I could not let it pass -without entering a protest against what f consider to be a. most unfortunate proision.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have made my protest against the system and I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved to leave out subsection (9) and to insert the following new sub-section:—
"(9) This sect except subsections (1) and (2) thereof, shall not apply to the counties of Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, or Cumberland, nor, except subsection (1) thereof, to scotland."
The noble Earl said: Rather earlier in the evening the noble Earl in charge of the Bill commented on the fact that in Scotland the agricultural industry was in the fortunate position of being able to disregard the findings of the wages boards, inasmuch as the agricultural wages paid there are consistently on a higher level than those fixed by the Wages Board. I am, happy to say we are also in that position in my own county of Northumberland, and also in the county of Durham. And it is because there is so much similarity in farming practice between the four northern counties and Scotland that I have put down this Amendment. I did so after consultation with the leaders of the Workers' Union in my own county and they entirely agree in riot desiring to see the principle of compulsion, even voluntarily and in the background, applied to their own county, because where they are able to meet in friendly discussion with the fanciers they find that they get the best possible terms.
Unfortunately, owing to the short time that we are allowed in this House to consider legislation, I have not been able to consult with the leaders of the workers in Durham, Westmoreland, and Cumberland, and therefore I do not feel that I am able

311
to press this Amendment very strongly on the House. But I believe that, if time lord been given me, I should have got the same consent front the workers of I he other three counties. I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether, between now and the Report stage, he would make inquiries as to whether this Amendment could not be accepted. If he is good enough to do so, I would ask him to make those inquries from the local leaders of the unions, because I am sure that the answer he would get from the headquarters in London would be very different from what he would get from the men's leaders in the four counties themselves.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 12 and 13, leave out subsection (9) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Grey.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I hardly think that the noble Earl is making a reasonable suggestion. He wants us now late in the day, to make inquiries.
EARL GREY: It is not our fault that we have got such little time.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: This Matter has hen before the consideration of the country for a considerable period.
EARL GREY: The whole principle of compulsion was put in on the last. clay in the House. of Commons.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: It had been given a good deal of consideration by the Farmers' Union and the workers' unions for some time, and we had not received any information that Northumberland wished to be left out. While the noble Earl himself confesses that he knows nothing about the throe other counties. I really do not know why the partition of England should begin at this Period. It would be perfectly easy for a noble Lord to rise and move that the county of Kent, or Lincoln, or Lancashire should be left out. We have had no information that the situation in these four counties is the same as it is in Scotland. Therefore, we do not see that there is any special case for making an exception. There is, of course, the case that in these northern counties it is more customary for men to be engaged for longer periods—for a half-year or a. year.
EARL GREY: They are all engaged for the whole year.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Is there no la Lour employed at all.
EARL GREY: Very little; no noire than thee is in Scotland.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am not wishing to make a difference in regard to Scotland. I am only asking whether t here is any casual labour in the northern counties. If, as the noble Lord says every body is engaged by the year, the conciliation committees set up in those counties will be well aware of the fact and will make terms as to wages and so on in conformity with the understanding that most of the men there are engaged for long periods. It is hardly fair to ask the Government at this time to except certain counties, and fear we cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.—
VISCOUNT GALWAYhad on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (10) (a), to leave out "or orchard, or osier-land, or woodland, or for market gardens or nursery grounds." The noble Viscount said: In moving my Amendment, I would point out that it is advisable to confine wage-fixing activities of the committees to the fixing of actual agricultural wages. Agriculture is really confined to persons employed more or less the year round in raising corn or stock. But it is defined in subsection (l0) as including, first of all, dairy farming and the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land. The men employed on that work are bona fide agricultural workmen, who work all the year round and are quite properly brought under the conciliation committees.
Then we come to orchard land and I propose to omit "orchard." It is a matter of fruit growing and gardening, in connection with which a certain amount of extra labour is employed at different times of the year in collecting fruit or spraying trees. But the fixing of the wages has nothing to do with agriculture. Then in regard to osier-land a large amount of extra labour may be set on when osiers are being cut or the beds weeded; otherwise, the work is not so continuous as to demand the help of a conciliation committee to fix the wages. Woodlands, after all, have nothing to do with agriculture. It is a special branch of cultivation and ought to be treated separately. I understand, how-

313
ever, that His Majesty's Government intend to leave that out; so I will say nothing further about it.
In regard to market, gardens, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill mentioned that parties of One hundred or two 'hundred men were taken in lorries at certain times of the year to look alter market gardens. But that is not continuous employment, and it seems to me that continuous employment is what these conciliation committees are concerned with, It is no part of their business to inquire into the profits of these occasional things and determine how much wages the men employed are entitled to. Nursery grounds are connected with woodlands and the raising of young trees, and have nothing to do with agriculture or continuous employment therein. I hope His Majesty's Government will accept my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Government accept the words"or woodland," and I suggest to the noble Viscount that he should move the deletion of"or orchard or osier-land "first, and I will call en him afterwards in regard to the others.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I beg to do that.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("or orchard or artier-land")—(Viscount GaIway.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: As I have already stated, I ant prepared to omit "woodland," but as to the next I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The definition of agriculture is the same as in the Act of 1917. It is not an innovation to put in these words. I should say that there are a large number of people employed regularly in orchards, osier-land and market gardens, and it is almost impossible to differentiate them from agricultural workers. Take, for instance, a large seed merchant who grows his seed. Why should he be allowed to employ people at a lower rate of wages than the farmers around him? The same applies to market gardens. I cannot conceive why, if a rate of wages is to be made in a district, the Market gardener should riot pay the same rate of wages in that district as the farmers have to pay.
The noble Lord made a reference to a speech that I made earlier in the day. I
314
stated that I knew of a ease where men and women were brought long distances in motor cars in order to work. As a matter of fact, that was not on a market garden but on a field. There we get into this difficulty—how are you to define a market garden? The place to which those people were brought contained about 200 acres under onions, another 200 acres under wheat, amid about 200 acres under parsnips and carrots. How are you going to say what is a market garden and what is a farm? If you begin leaving out "market gardens" and then "nursery grounds'' you get, into a great difficulty. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that you should be satisfied with the omission of woodlands.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I take it that "nursery grounds" means any private nursery on an estate. On a large estate a number of the foresters will put in a day or two in the nursery. Would they come under this beading? Take the case of what happens in unemployed insurance. Woodcutters and foresters are not supposed to come.under the unemployed insurance, but the Department tries to contend that if a. forester puts in a day or two, or even a few hours, in a saw mill, he must come under the insurance. Though it would be useful to have woodlands excluded, that would not quite meet the case.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("or woodland —(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (10)(a), to leave out "or nursery grounds." The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Earl is not inclined to accept this Amendment on the ground that the expression "nursery grounds," as used here, does not, apply to tree nurseries. I should like to have an assurance from the noble Earl that that is the case. It is quite clear that if it applies to nurseries, as we have already excepted woodlands, as our practice is to employ the same men on the nurseries as in I he woodlands, a very difficult situation will arise. I want some decided assurance on that. We understand that generally on an estate nurseries are not included as nursery grounds.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("or nursery grounds").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I am informed that nursery grounds do not mean places in which you are growing young trees, but it moans places where seed merchants and people of that description follow their calling. I think in those circumstances they come under the same heading as market gardeners, and I think it would be a pity to leave them out.
LORD BLEDISLOE: May I suggest, that on the Report stage the noble Earl should put in some such words as "other than woodland nurseries," which would make it quite clear that it does not include the nurseries to which Lord Clinton referred?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (10)(a), after "nursery grounds" to insert "hut not woodland." The noble Lord said: Although the noble. Earl has accepted the deletion of the word "woodland" it does not make the position clear. This Bill will become an Act without the word "woodland" in it, and someone may raise the question as to whether woodlands are agriculture or not. It may go to the Courts and the Courts will decide. If my Amendment is inserted the position is made perfectly plain.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, after ("grounds") insert ("but not woodland").—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am not quite certain how the subsection will read. I will promise the noble Lord to put in words on the Report stage excepting woodlands.
LORD DYNEVOR: I want to pre-vent such a case being taken to the Courts to decide whether woodlands are agriculture or not. I am informed that these words will make it quite certain.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Before we leave Clause 4 I should like to ask how the
316
expenses of the members of these committees and their operations will be met? Is each individual to bear his own expenses? If so, it will perhaps mean sonic injustice to the workmen who act on them as compared with the employers.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Their expenses will be met by their organisations.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
"Section fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1920, is hereby repealed."
The noble Lord said: Section 15 of the Act of 1920 transfers from Part I of the Act of 1908 some provisions by which the tenant can make certain improvements without the consent of the landlord and then charge his landlord with the expense for so doing when he leaves the farm. The improvements which the tenant can make include the formation of silos and the removal of permanent fences, which, of course, might alter the whole character of the farm, and in these days of high prices the tenant may put up permanent fences at a most unreasonable cost.
Another point is the reclaiming of waste land, a most expensive and very doubtful proposition. Then there is the laying down of permanent pasture, to which some of your Lordships object very much. Next, there is the planting of orchards. I happen to know something about that subject, and I think it is one of those matters of which the landlords ought to be the sole judges. It might seem quite favourable. at the beginning, but after a few years, when the tenant has gone, it might be found that the trees selected were unsuitable to the soil and climate and the whole thing is an absolute failure, while the landlord will have had to pay a very heavy sum in compensation two or three years before. I think this section may be fairly described as one of those sections put in as a compromise in the Act of 1920. Part I of that Act certainly did give landlords very great advantages in certain respects, and when that has been taken away, it is only fair to relieve the landlord of the heavy burden which may be put upon him under Section 15 of that Act.
I would point out that; the cost of labour and material now is very excessive. Anyone of your Lordships who has lately read the statements in The Times regarding the cost of maintaining great estates, such as that which appeared to-day with regard to the Duke of Bedford's estate in Bedford and. another county, will see what enormous expenditure is necessary. I may be told that the agricultural committee would have a right to veto this expenditure and to arbitrate between the landlord and the tenant as to the desirability of the improvements. But before these great powers are used it should be shown that landlords have been remiss in the proper equipment and repair of their estates. If arbitration took place at the present moment, and the landlords were told that the tenant would have a tight to put up these buildings, even at the excessive price of materials, when the tenant went out a few years afterwards, although it might cost far less then, he would get the full price of the improvements. The arbitrator would see that it would be very unfair to the tenant not to give him the full value after the agricultural committee had approved the improvements being made. It seems to me that up to the present owners have done this, and unless it can be shown (and I do do not think it has been shown vet) that they are unreasonable in this matter it is only fair in these days of overwhelming taxation local and Imperial, that Section 15 should be repealed.
I may be told that these improvements may be objected to because they can only be made by Regulations laid down by the agricultural committees. We know that the committees have attempted to do this. I do not think it is fair that landowners should have these things hanging over their heads, with all their present liabilities, and if. Parliament does not protect them from Regulations which may be introduced in the future they will be put to very heavy expenditure entirely against the interests of the estate, perhaps in favour of some particular tenant who inn have the approval of the agricultural committee.
Amendment moved—.
After Clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(Lord strachie.)
LORD CLINTON: I think the description of my noble friend of Section 15 is quite a fair one. When the Act of 1920 was before the House, these Regulations were
318
objected to more than anything else. But we eventually came to a sort of Parliamentary compromise upon it, under which certain buildings. & c., were not to be transferred, mid the remainder of the improvements might be transferred by Regulations. When the Regulations first came before your Lordships' House they were objected to very strongly and were withdrawn. They were brought in once more and were objected to by my noble friend end again were withdrawn. Had been present in the House I should have voted in favour of the Regulations being passed, not because I liked them—I disliked them as much as anybody else—but because I thought we had mite to an agreement and some Regulations should be passed. The point now working in my mind is whether the great, change which the Government making in withdrawing Part I of the Act of 1920 absolves us from tarrying out what was a compromise at the time the Act of 1920 was passed. I am inclined to think we are absolved, and that is the view of those with whom I act. Owners have distinctly suffered by the withdrawal of Part I of the Act, the only things which are left being those which are most objectionable to them. Therefore I think we are entitled to take perfectly free action in this matter.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I imagine my noble friend only wishes to repeal subsections (1) and (2). The latter part of this section deals with the Evesham Custom, which is a different matter altogether, and none of us want to interfere with it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In reply to the last speaker, I think the Amendment does touch the subsection dealing with the Evesham Custom, but I will deal mainly with the Amendment as it relates to Orders to move these improvements from one schedule to another. I may say at once that it is utterly impossible fur the Government to accept the Amendment. It is entirely outside the scope of the Bill, and the noble Lord fully recognises that, because he has put down a consequential Amendment to alter the Title of the Bill. I would really suggest to the noble Lord 'that if he has such a great grievance his proper course is to bring in a Bill, or get other people interested in this matter to bring in a Bill, amending Part II of the Act. I do not know whether he wishes me to enter into the whole question of the rights

319
and wrongs of the Ministry of Agriculture issuing an Order that certain improvements should be transferred front one schedule to another. We have already had a very lengthy debate on that subject and I was beaten, and the noble Lord was victorious. Exercising his powers and the powers which your Lordships exercise in this House
Resolved in the affirmative, and the Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 6 agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

Finance,

Housing (Scotland) (No. 2),

Representation of the People (No. 2),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Newcastle-under-Lyme Extension),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7),

St. Helens Corporation,

Liverpool Corporation,

Southend Water,

Grimsby Corporation,

London County Council (Money),

Wolverton Estate,

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 6),

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 7),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sheffield Extension).

[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock, and resumed at nine o'clock.]

THE TITLE.
An Act to repeal the Corn Production Acts, 1917 and l920, to make provision as to payments under those Acts in respect of the crops of the current year, to provide funds for agricultural development, to promote the formation of joint conciliation committees for the industry of agriculture, and to make certain consequential amendments in section twelve of the Agriculture Act, 1920.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("section twelve") and insert sections twelve awl fifteen ").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: This does not bring the Amendment which has just been made within the Title of the Bill, because the Title says it is an Act to make" consequential amendments in section twelve of the Agriculture Act." This is not Section 12, and the Amendment is therefore quite irrelevant.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not know why the noble Earl says that. I took the ordinary means of finding out what the procedure of the House was in the matter and I was advised to do as I have done.
you were able to defeat the Ministry, and you will be able to do so again if the Ministry makes any Order of which you disapprove.
On Question, Whether the new Clause shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Bledisloe, L.

Hindlip, L.

Clinton, L.

Lamington, L.

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

Crawshaw, L.

V. Monckton, L. (V. Galway). [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Grey, E.

Ebury, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Erskine, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Hastings, L.

Strachie, L, [Teller.]

Vernon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Exeter, M.

Portsmouth, R.

Gisborough, L.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Bradford, E.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Clarendon, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Wigan, L.(E. Crawford.)

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L

EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is not a matter of procedure at all.
LORD CHAIRMAN: It is true that the noble lord asked me about the Title, but I did not advice him that his Amendment to the Title made it right.
LORD STRACHIE: I was not referring to the noble Earl. I desire to press my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EXECUTION OF MRS. LINDSAY.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE had given Notice to draw the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the account of the murder of Mrs. Lindsay, published in the Daily Telegraph and other papers of July 30, and to ask whether Mrs. Lindsay had done anything more than any loyal citizen is bound to do, namely, give such information to the- police against criminals as was acquired by her in the normal experience of her daily life.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, sonic of the facts in connection with this terrible crime are only too well known, but there are others which are not so well known. The object of Inv Question—it is only Question that I an: going to put to the noble Earl—is to elicit some further information. What is known is that Mrs. Lindsay was

321
foully, murdered by a gang of vile and cowardly assassins. But there seems to be an attempt by the persons who took away her to besmirch her reputation by attaching to it the stigma of a spy I am not going to say anything detrimental to those brave men who take their lives in their hands when they join the Secret Service of their country. I do not want anything that I say to be taken as reflecting upon them But it is obvious that the word "spy" has been deliberately introduced in connection with Mrs. Lindsay in order to turn away from her and from her case that sympathy which otherwise would be felt for her and her relatives throughout the length and breadth of the British Empire.
I tome cow to the information for which I ask I am told that all that can be alleged against Mrs Lindsay by her murderers is that in the normal experience of daily life she obtained sonic information which she passed on to the police—information against criminals or likely to lead to the apprehension of criminals. If that is what she did, she did nothing but that which every honourable and loyal citizen ought to do, and nothing more than everybody would wish to do who was too proud to be terrorised by the Sinn Fein organisation. If that is the story, as I am informed it is, then throughout the whole of the English-speaking world Mrs. Lindsay's case will run on parallel lines with that of Nurse Cavell, and she will be nothing less than a martyr in the eves of the whole Empire. What I ask my noble friend is to tell me, in effect, whether there is any kind of information in the possession of the Government which will lend any- countenance to the aspersions that are cast on the reputation and the name of Mrs. Lindsay.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I suppose that this case is the most painful of the long series of horrible tragedies which have occurred in Ireland. The Government of Ireland has very little information on this subject beyond what appears in the Daily Telegraph and in other organs of the Press. Reports which have reached the Irish Office from police inspectors and others confirm the main outline of what Lord Selborne and the newspapers have reported. I have the reports before me, but on the main subject they convey nothing in addition to what has been said, and what is already public property.
322
The only question that Lord Selborne has really put is whether this lady did anything more than any loyal citizen of the Crown would do. The answer is, of course, that this lady—an aged lady in very delicate health—heard that attempts were to be made to assassinate certain of the Crown forces, not in open fight, but by concealed methods, and, in the hope of saving these men from assassination, she gave information to the police. She was then apprehended her house was burned down; silo was removed somewhere—the place has not yet been identified—and, four or five months afterwards, a person styling himself, I think, "Minister for Defence" published in the Irish newspapers a letter announcing that this lady had been executed. I am not sure the word "actually Occurs in the letter, but that is the implication. If the word "spy" does not occur in the letter, it is clearly an implication of the whole letter" directly responsible for conveying to the enemy information which led to the execution of oar nun by British authorities,'' and so on. There is every reason to believe that the report that this lady has been shot or slaughtered in this manner is correct.
I gather that Lord Selborne wants no more than an assurance that the Government repudiate in the warmest fashion any allegation that is made that this lady did anything which was inconsistent with her duty as a loyal subject of the Crown. That assurance is, of course, given, and whole-heartedly given. I can only express my own personal regret that a namesake and clanswoman of rug own should have met her death in such a manner, through her attempt to save the servants of the Crown from brutal assassination.

SUKKUR BARRAGE SCHEME.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the reasons for not appointing a Committee of expert engineers to consider the advisability of carrying out the proposed Sukkur barrage on the I Indus. The noble Lord said: I am not at this hour of the night going to venture to give your Lordships' House any detailed information about the project proposed, vast and important though it is. I have had some correspondence with my noble friend, the Under-Secretary of State for India on the subject. Put very briefly it is in connection with a

323
proposal which has been adumbrated for a num her of years of increasing the cultivable area of central Sind by a system of canals. One of the chief canals is called the Rohri Canal. Why it has not been undertaken in the past is owing to different vicissitudes, but I think all the expert opinion agrees that it has been too long delayed. It would probably have been put into operation except for the fact that in 1912 there was a big irrigation project in the Punjaub, and it was thought that the waters then withdrawn from the Indus for this scheme would reduce the flow of the Indus to such an extent that it would be impossible to carry out successfully the Rohri Canal scheme. Events have proved that this was a false expectation.
Then was considered the question of building a barrage to hold up the waters to enable the Rohri Canal to be built, and also a new system of canals on the right bank of the Indus. All have to say is that the barrage enormously adds to the expense of the scheme. At the place where it was originally projected a great band of rock crosses the Indus, and that was the site selected for the dam. Even that site, though it offers all the facilities of a rock foundation, has certain difficulties. It was then considered desirable to look for other sites. However, now the engineers of Bombay have derided upon a site only 6,000 yards below this great band of rock, on the sand. But it is very much feared that if a great dam is executed there the waters of the Indus will be so held up that it will be quite possible they might break out a new route and possibly cut a channel to the west of the town of Sukkur, leaving the railway bridge perfectly useless, and also, perhaps, doing grave destruction to the systems of irrigation already working.
In addition, if this dam were built, it would mean an enormous increase to the cost of the work, and also —and it is to this that the point of my question is particularly directed—in building tie barrage first instead of commencing with the Rohri Canal the dam would be built at a quicker rate than the canal could be cut, and for a number of Years the capital suit]; in building the dam would practically be unproductive—perhaps for five or six years Of 'course, the extra expense incurred would also entail raising the assessments paid by the cultivators for the use of water. Those who have examined the figures maintain that the cost of this barrage or dam would
324
be greatly minimised, but it would be far in excess of the sum that has been put down to it. Those who think that this is a mistaken policy contend that the canal ought to be first commenced, because as soon as the first two sections are cut there will at once be a productive income.
In 1913 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the whole question and it was decided that the completion of the canal and barrage should be simultaneous. The canal would take longer than the barrage, and should be the work to be undertaken first. In the opinion of many engineers, if the Rohri Canal were cut it would be found that there would be sufficient water flowing to obviate the building, of the barrage at all. It would be better to corn-mince with the canal. Then there would be time to see what amount of water was to be obtained from the Indus and also time for an examination as to the best site for the barrage.
I could quote the opinions of many eminent engineers in the matter, but I will be content. with mentioning that of Sir Murdoeh Macdonald, who, having gone into the question, said that he could not understand why any one should propose to build the barrage first. During the first period the natural levels of the river were at all times high enough to supply- water over a large area. That is the opinion of an eminent engineer, and it is impossible to understand; why the authorities should determine on beginning the work on the barrage first. All I ask is that the Government of India should consider whether an inquiry is not desirable in the face of so many expert opinions. I. presided at a meeting in London the other day where there was not one person who did not agree as to the undesirability of commencing the barrage first and inquired what earthly reason there. was for the Government of India to force this costly and expensive work as the first undertaking, instead of taking the advice so often given that it was the Rohri Canal that should be commenced first.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF LYTTON):My Lords, the Sukkur barrage scheme to which the noble Lord has referred is an immense undertaking of irrigation development which has been prepared by the Government of Bombay, and which if it can be successfully carried

325
out is expected to make the Province of sind one of the largest cotton-growing districts within the Empire. It has recently attracted some attention in London, because at a meeting of the East India Association it was adversely criticised by Dr. Summers and ether distinguished engineers who have now retired from the service of the Government in India. There are two features of the scheme, the first financial, the second technical. The noble Lord touched upon both In its financial aspect—involving such questions as how the money is to be found, whether the estimates as to cost are reliable, and whether the scheme is likely to be remunerative—it has not yet been approved. This matter has been referred back to the Government of India, by whom it is now being considered. I shall therefore say nothing about that aspect The technical aspect of it—involving the site of the barrage, design, construction, etc—has been approved by the Secretary of State and it is this approval to which my noble friend takes exception. He has supported the view taken by Dr. Summers that the building of the barrage should be postponed until after the construction of the Rohri Canal. I shall riot, of course, argue the merits of the case with my noble friend, but I can tell him that on this point the unanimous opinion of irrigation experts in India is against him. Those who have studied the question recently on the spot, consider that if the irrigated area were greatly increased without building the barrage a season of short rainfall might produce a calamity so grave that no Government could take the risk of such a possibility.
In view of the opinion recently expressed at the meeting to which I have referred the Secretary of State has been asked whether he will refer the matter to a committee of experts before giving his approval. The Secretary of State replied in the House of Commons on August 2, that he had already given his approval to the scheme, subject to a further consideration of its finance, and that he did not propose to adopt the course suggested. My noble friend now asks me to give him the reasons for this decision. They are: (1) That in the seven years which have intervened since the Committee of experts reported in 1913, the whole problem has been exhaustively re-examined by the best irrigation engineers and revenue officers in Bombay, who have recommended the present scheme; and (2) That t he Government of
326
India is satisfied that the, present scheme is free from the objections raised by the Committee of 1913 to the earlier scheme Of course, this is not a. matter on which desire to dogmatise, nor I am sure would the Secretary of State refuse to adopt the course which my noble friend suggests if there were good grounds for doing so.
I submit that there a re only two grounds which would justify the Secretary of State in referring this matter to yet another committee. They are: (1) if there were any difference of opinion amongst the expert advisers of the Government of India; and (2) if he had any reason to doubt the competence of those who have given the advice. Neither of these two conditions exists. The advice has been unanimous and it has been given, by competent engineers with the most recent experience of the problem. You cannot go on referring a matter front one set of experts to another indefinitely. This is no new question. It has been examined most exhaustively and the present scheme represents the most recent and I think I may say final judgment on the matter. In such matters there must he some finality. When the Government has obtained the best expert advice available and is prepared to take the responsibility of acting upon it, the Secretary of State is not disposed to withhold his approval.
LORD LAMINGTON: I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply. At, the same time I think it is eminently- unsatisfactory. We have never had the names of any of the experts who gave advice which is in flat contradiction of the opinion of the committees appointed by Lord Curzon in 1902–3 and again in 1913. There is nothing to show that the enormous expense which is going to be incurred—
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Order!
LORD LAMINGTON: I regret very ranch that the Secretary of State is so obdurate in this matter and only hope that those responsible may be surcharged any expense.

BATLEY CORPORATION BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WIGAN CORPORATION BELL
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to consolidate and amend the.law relating to industrial Assurance, and to make provision with respect to War Bond policies, and policies to which the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, applies, and bond investment business. To be read 2a on Wednesday next.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (DRAINAGE) BILL.
The King's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWARK EXTENSION) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the order; read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Metropolitan Water Board (Charges).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PETERHEAD HARBOURS ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 3aon Wednesday next.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Committed for Tuesday next.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Bristol and Gloucester Orders.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aberavon and Neath Extension) Bill do form a Select Committee for the consideration of the Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, so far as relates to the Bristol Pilotage Order and the Gloucester Pilotage Order read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to he heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERAVON AND NEATH EXTENSION) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Earl of Wemyss be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill for the consideration of the Neath Extension Order in the place of the Duke of Wellington and that the Earl of Wemyss be Chairman of the said Committee, read, and agreed to.

HASTINGS TRSMWSYS (EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before twelve o'clock midnight.