Sitting of 10 August 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The TAMP CHANCELLOR on Woolsack.
LORD DALZIEL.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Henry James Dalziel, Bart., having been created Baron Dalziel of Kirkcaldy, of Marylebone in the County of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

RELEASE OF SINN FEIN PRISONERS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to put a Question to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack of which I have given hint private notice—namely, whether the Government will inform the House of the reasons which have led them to order the release of the members of the Southern Irish Parliament who have been in prison in connection with crime and rebellion in Ireland. Let me say, in the first place, that on the last occasion on which I put a Question to the noble and learned Viscount he asked me who "we" were, when I addressed your Lordships. Tit this case, there is no question of "we" I speak entirely for myself. Beyond that, I have hardly anything to say in putting the Question. It is possible that the noble and learned Viscount may be glad to have the opportunity of giving some account to your Lordships of the reasons which have led the Government to this decision, because it is a grave decision.
These gentlemen have been in prison for diverse breaches, or alleged breaches, of the law. I do not know how many of them are actually convicted, but some of them have been convicted. Certainly, in one case—the case of a man who is a member of the Southern Irish Parliament—he has been convicted of the offence of murder—at any rate, in so far as the law is concerned it was murder—and he has been released. Unfortunately, at first the release was refused, and then it was granted—I say "unfortunately," because anything like the appearance of yielding to pressure in a. matter of this kind is to be deprecated. But I should specially like to ask the Government whether this release is in connection with the terms that have been offered to Mr. de Valera by the Govern-

357
ment.I think it is very important that your Lordships should know the reason for the releases, and how far they are made in connection with the negotiations that are taking place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, Lord Salisbury was good enough, when lie gave me private notice of his intention to ask this Question, to inform me, as he has informed your Lordships, that he was asking it on his own behalf. The noble Marquess had on the Paper two clays ago Notice of a Resolution which would have challenged the whole of the policy of the Government upon a matter which he has rightly described as extremely difficult.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is still down.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was under the impression that it had been withdrawn. It has not, however, at any rate so far, been moved, and I think that no definite day has been appointed by the noble Marquess for its discussion. In the view of the Government, Lord Salisbury rendered a public service by not moving that Motion on the date on which it stood for discussion, because whether the course adopted by the Government be Fight, as we believe, or whether it be wrong and disastrous, as the noble Marquess believes, ibis at least is evident: that it is a course to which we are committed, and the discussion at on.' time invited by Lord Salisbury would have involved, in my judgment, disadvantages on both sides. I, for one, am extremely glad that it has not so far arisen for discussion.
Your Lordships will not make the mistake of supposing that my satisfaction in that circumstance is based upon any unwillingness to justify the course on which the Government have decided. We may be right or we may be wrong in that respect, but we are satisfied that if and when a discussion is practicable we shall be able to satisfy both Parliament and the country that in circumstances of unexampled anxiety we have chosen the right course; but it is evident that I ought not to be expected, in answer to the more. particular Question which Lord Salisbury has put, to me to-night, to deal with that general discussion which would have been proper and, indeed, necessary had the Motion required decision in this House.
358
I avoid, as far as I can, the risk of involving myself in so general a discussion, and I merely deal with the situation at large in so far as it may be necessary in order to answer the particular Question which Lord Salisbury has addressed to the Government.
Some weeks ago, the position in Ireland was, however grave, an intelligible one. I have myself attempted to make it plain. It was a situation, rightly analysed, in which the principal difficulties were military ones. The Government, employing all the available resources of the military and of the police, were engaged in trying to compass the destruction of the forces which were arrayed against the Crown in circumstances very familiar to this House. The progress of the coercive attempts made by the Government had, as it is well known, proved in a high degree disappointing. The expectations formed, very often upon military or police advice, by the Chief Secretary and referred to by him in another place, bad been more than once disappointed, and it is broadly true to say that some weeks ago the position was as follows. The military effort had not; I have already indicated, succeeded, and yet there seemed not the slightest prospect of any solution of our difficulties except by a further and intensified military effort.
In those circumstances I was pressed in this House, in the course of a debate initiated by the Earl of Donoughmore, to state on behalf of the Government, and so that all Irish people might appreciate it, what, were the concessions that the Government were prim red to make. After most careful consideration with my colleagues, and in a speech which was curiously, almost unintelligibly, misunderstood in some quarters, I made it quite plain that it was not the policy of the Government in any circumstances to indicate the concessions which it was prepared to make, unless and until there were persons of obvious authority in Ireland who were prepared to undertake the responsibility for discussions with the representatives of the Government. No other sentence of my speech lent any colour to the attitude of the Government as explained by me other than the colour which I have at this moment explained.
Almost simultaneously, a day or two later, it fell to His Majesty the King to pay a visit to Belfast in circumstances well

359
within the memory of the House. The Government, accepting the responsibility which correct constitutional doctrine imposed upon them, were well aware of the sentences in the gracious Speech. which are also within the memory of the House, in which a hope was, expressed that even at this, as it seemed, eleventh hour, some brighter prospects might emerge amid the prevalent destruction and bloodshed. The response to that speech was a very remarkable one. I do not propose to describe it with further particularity than to say that it soon became evident that the situation had altered in a sense which everyone will admit to be important, and which the Government believed to be vital. It had been altered in this sense: that it was no longer possible for us to maintain that there were not in Ireland men of the highest consequence and importance who were will to treat with the Government. The moment that conviction was accepted, as it was accepted by us, we had to face a very definite decision, and if I understand the attitude of Lord Salisbury, he would at that moment quite definitely have refused to enter into any negotiations at all in the existing circumstances with any man who was responsible for the methods by which the Irish resistance to authority had been expressed in the past few months and years.
That was, and that remains, the ground of difference between Lord Salisbury and the Government. What would have been the position had we, in the circumstances described by me, accepted the view of Lord Salisbury and acted upon it, let me in a very few sentences make undeniably plain. We should have been committed for a period, indefinite in duration, to the continuance of our military and police efforts. But this also should be made plain. We should have been committed to a campaign upon a far larger scale, involving the employment of much greater numbers of men than. I believe historically, have ever been employed in Ireland in the repression of rebellion. It may, unhappily, still prove to be the case that these desperate necessities await us. Certainly, I am not anxious to exaggerate them, but we should have had to ask for and obtain the sanction of the people of this country, because without their sympathy and support so great and costly an effort could not indefinitely be sustained.
I am not one of the number who have said—I have always alleged, and believed
360
the contrary—that it would have proved impossible for us to put down this rebellion. I am certain, and, indeed, it is obvious, that the strength of this country, if unsparingly exerted with the necessary vigour and sacrifice, could have put an end to the rebellion. But within what period of time? What military adviser was bold enough to inform us with the least approach to precision of the time that would be required the resources in own that would be necessary, and the expenditure in money that would be involved? All these questions may still prove to be necessary, and if they are necessary they will be confronted. But while these efforts are being made, what would have continued before our eyes in Ireland? The butchery of the police and the forces of the Crown would have continued. Day after day that toll would have grown, and side by side the measures taken upon our side, just and necessary measures as they are, would have added to the long legacy of bitterness and unhappiness which afflicts that stricken country. Your Lordships will remember the moving emphasis with which Lord Desart told us that no one is happy in Ireland to-day.
At that moment, and in those circumstances, we reached the decision that we should be doing a wrong and indefensible thing if we refused to hold any negotiations, on grounds which are apparent to me as well as to Lord Salisbury, with men who had been instrumental in the nature of the campaign, but of whom it became known that they were prepared to enter into negotiations with us. I am bold enough to believe that if it had been possible or necessary to submit to the judgment of this House, to the judgment of another place, or to the judgment of the constituencies, the question as to whether we should utterly refuse to negotiate in the circumstances I have explained, the answer from Parliament and from the constituencies would have been overwhelmingly in the direction of attempting the negotiations to which I have referred. Let me make this perfectly plain. Whether we are challenged in this House, or in another place, we shall be prepared at all times to defend the course we have adopted.
I shall venture to found a brief further statement I have to make on the assumption that in the decision we then took we should have had the support of all overwhelming number of your Lordships.

361
I am led more confidently to form this assurance by the statement, made very candidly by the noble Marquess himself, who told us that he asks the Question and advances the criticisms on his own solitary behalf.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have advanced no criticism.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that interruption is entirely worthy of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALSBURY: The noble and learned Viscount will forgive me. I put a Very simple Question to the Lord Chancellor, and in accordance with the Orders of your Lordships' House, I did not make any speech in connection with it; and I did not submit any arguments. I do not complain of the Lord Chancellor taking Otis opportunity to make a statement on the Government's because I think such a statement has been much too long delayed, but I should have preferred to have stated my own arguments myself rather than to have heard them stated by the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The statement to which the noble Marquess took exception was that he had made a criticism of the Government. To that I venture to reply that it is a verbal point and nothing more. Every one in your Lordships House knows, and the noble Marquess knows perfectly well, that in asking this Question as to why members of the Irish Assembly have been released, he meant to convey the noble Marquess will not deny it that his attitude is a critical What other reason could there be for asking a Question, unless it meant to indicate a criticism on the part of the noble Marquess? The point taken by him is a verbal one entirely.
A decision having been taken, that course, were the Government to adopt lien again it would scent to me to be perfectly plain that when once the decision had been taken every to step equally was necessary without the taking of which the negotiations, to which as we think we were rightly committed, could not take place. How was it possible for us to negotiate with anyone in Ireland except with those who represented the Southern part of Ireland measured by the only test of that representation which was available to us, or which,
362
Indeed, existed at all? It was for that reason that we decided, and we claim we were right, I hat the members of the Southern Assembly should be released in order that discussions should take place between representatives of the British Government and the men who derive their strength from the only body of representatives who can claim any constitutional contact with the electors of Southern Ireland. The noble Marquess asked me a more specific question in relation to the case of one or two men, as to whether or not it was part of the terms between the British Government and Mr. de Valera that these men should be for the purpose of these discussions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I want to ask is whether the release took place in order tot facilitate the discussion of the terms: whether the terms are going to be submitted to I la sc gentlemen?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Undoubtedly the release took place in order to facilitate the discussion of these matters, in order that. If there be ultimately an overwhelming Sanction on the part of the Irish for the proposals which have boon addressed to them by the British Government the authority of those who spoke on behalf of Ireland might not be challenged. I myself do not know of any other means by which it would have been possible to have put forward upon an unimpeachably representative ground the conclusion reached by Southern Ireland. Lord Salisbury said that a statement of Government policy was overdue and that although he was glad that a short general statement had been attempted by too, it was not- precisely invited by his Question. I take a different view. It is quite impossible for ally member of this House, or for Ito country generally, to judge of the wisdom prudence and defensibility of that which the Government have done without going back to the moment at which the first and critical decision was taken—the decision that there should be discussions at. all. If it be decided as I am sure it will hereafter be decided, that we were right in reaching that conclusion at that time, I find it: impossible to believe that it can be disputed that, the only measures by which such discussions might be made.authoritative should have been taken.
I have only this to add, as I am dealing with this subject in it somewhat general

363
way. If and when it becomes possible, as it assuredly will, in one contingency or the other, I hope within a reasonable period to make known the nature of the proposals which the Government have made to Parliament and the country. I, for one, am persuaded that it will 1w agreed by the overwhelming number of those who bring well-intentioned and reasonable judgment to bear upon them, that, while they have gone as far as it is possible to go in the direction of proving, the genuineness of the desire of this country for a real and permanent reconciliation, they have inflexibly adhered to those points which the vital interests and the safety of these islands require.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have no desire whatever, as I said in (I am afraid) my too frequent interruptions, to quarrel in ally sense with the course which the noble and learned Viscount has taken. He always treats me with very great courtesy, and I have no desire to offer any criticism of his taking this course. I shall weigh very carefully what he said at the beginning of his remarks, before I put the Motion which still stands in my name upon the Paper or rather before I advance it to a definite date. I should like to say this, in putting a further question to the noble and learned Viscount. He replied to me, in effect, that the terms which the Government have offered to Mr. de Valera will be submitted to the representatives of the Southern Irish people, including these gentlemen who have been released; that is to say, they will be submitted to the Irish House of Commons. When will the same terms he submitted to the British Parliament? Is it to be said that the Irish House of Commons is to know the terms while the British House of Commons and the British House of Lords are not to know the terms?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess will recall that when I was last questioned upon this matter, I attempted to make it plain that we had put forward to the representatives of Southern Ireland proposals which, in our judgment, were a suitable basis for negotiations, and, it Wright be, for settlement. The Government who had put forward those proposals was naturally completely cognisant, both of their tenour and of their scope. No one who was representing Southern Ireland, with the exception of the almost solitary
364
Negotiator who bad taken part in the discussions, was cognisant of the nature of the proposals; and in order to discover whether or not those proposals were thought suitable for further discussion, likely to prove the basis of a settlement, authority was given to Mr. de Valera to place them before the Assembly whose sanction, in our judgment, was a condition precedent even to their further consideration by us. Lord Salisbury asked me when an opportunity will be given to Parliament to consider those terms. I would say, very respectfully, that it is not so much the date that in this matter is of the first consequence, as that these proposals shall be submitted to Parliament ill circumstances which will give Parliament complete power Of imposing their prohibition if the proposals, when made, do not recommend themselves.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will it be before the Prorogation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should think it extremely improbable, Further than that I cannot go. It is improbable, not, because, if the Irish representatives return a reply, favourable or unfavourable, there will be one moment's delay. I assure Lord Salisbury that if the Government are informed, either that the representatives of Ireland consider these proposals suitable as a basis for discussion or that they consider them unsuitable, not only that fact, but these proposals, will be at once communicated to Parliament. If, on the other hand, in a matter which is entirely beyond the control of the Government, these proposals should not have been so submitted, it will, of course, if there is an assent to the proposals, and if the later discussions which were always contemplated prove fruitful, lie utterly impossible to give effect to them until both Houses of Parliament have had the full power of exercising their indisputable and undisputed right of veto.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is a very grave statement which has been made by the noble and learned Viscount. In the opinion of the Government, it is not likely that these terms, which are to be known and canvassed in all parts of Ireland are to be submitted to the British Parliament before the Prorogation. I do not say what course I shall pursue, but the noble Viscount must not

365
complain if we find it necessary to provoke a discussion in consequence of the statement which he has just made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise, net to continue the discussion, but because I wish to make it most plain by every means in my power if Lord Salisbury deems in Ins understanding of the matter that the public interest warrants old justifies such a discussion, he will find the Government most ready to meet him in reply to that charge.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should like to ask what the noble Marquess means by known and canvassed in all parts of Ireland ''? That is a very serious statement to make.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, perhaps, that was rather an inaccurate statement. I should have said "known and canvassed by the elected representatives in every part of Ireland"; that is, by those who correspond to the British House of Commons amid House of Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not wish to engage in any long discussion, but as I find myself a Warm supporter of His Majesty's Government in their present attitude towards 'Ireland, I think.I ought perhaps, to say a word before this informal discussion closes. To go back for a moment to the speech to which the noble and learned Viscount alluded, the speech that, he made from the Woolsack a week ago, and for he made, not an apology, but an apologia in the strict sense, it may be, as the noble and learned Viscount said, that the terms of that speech created a degree of apprehension which was not altogether justified. But I think the complaint against the noble and learned Viscount is this, that he, being perhaps the greatest adept in your Lordships' House in creating an atmosphere, created on that afternoon an atmosphere of depression and alarm among many well-wishers of Ireland which was only dissipated by the terms of the gracious Speech made in Ireland, which then, one must assume, were within the knowledge of the noble and learned Viscount. For he did succeed in producing an entirely different impression in the minds of the public front that which was afterwards produced by the gracious Speech made in
366
Ireland. There is no need to pursue that question further, and I do not desire to do so.
As regards the general terms of the Question put by the noble Marquess behind me, I hope that lie will consider very carefully his intention of pursuing the Notice, which he has placed on the Paper for a general discussion on the present policy in Ireland: that is to say, that he will not force such a discussion unless the Government are agreed that it will be for the general advantage that such a discussion should take place. In these intensely critical times we who are outside the knowledge of what is passing in Ireland, and there ale very few who have it—even the members of His Majesty's Government have not got it in its completeness—it is impossible to walk too warily, and it will be necessary to wait on events, and see what can lie announced, either in Ireland Or here, before deciding upon any public discussion of the policy of the Government.
On the particular question of the release of all the members of Dan Eireann, including one who had been convicted of murder, I assume, without any special knowledge, that the releases, including the release of that particular man, were based on the fact that although he had been obviously engaged in guerilla warfare, and had there taken life in circumstances which I imagine would make guilty of murder, very Irishman belonging to the so-called Republican Army who had fired a fatal shot, His Majesty's Government consider that lie was one of a large number of men who technically might equally have been convicted, and that they did not consider themselves placed ill the particular difficulty in which they would, undoubtedly, have been placed if one of those men had been found guilty of cold-blooded assassination. But neither do I wish to pursue that particular topic further.
As regards the question to which the noble Marquess last drew attention, that of the time when Parliament will be placed in possession of these details, I cannot help thinking that what the noble and learned Viscount has just said is some justification for the action which I took the other day, in endeavouring to keep the session alive until such period as it might be necessary to call Parliament together, without going through tin whole procedure of starting a new session, in order to discuss these matters. It will be remembered that it

367
that time it was said. I think, in another place, if not categorically at any rate with a good deal of assurance, that these announcements were certain to be made before Parliament rose. Now the noble and learned Viscount tells us that they almost. certainly will not, and I cannot help agreeing with the noble Marquess behind me, that there may be smile danger in allowing these terms to become, as you may be sure they will become, subjects of public discussion in the Press and elsewhere, because I can scarcely believe that if a large number of Southern Irishmen are acquainted with the terms they will regard them as absolutely confidential, and not discuss them with their friends.
The result will be that they will become more or less public property; and I cannot help thinking there is some risk that the kind of discussion which will take place, both in the Irish and the British Press, and possibly also on excited platforms, may tend to endanger what we all so keenly desire, the prospects of a complete settlement. I wish, therefore, that His Majesty's Government had thought fit to sanction arrangements whereby Parliament could have been promptly called together to consider these matters, without starting, already, before this summer is over, the session of 1922.
LORD KILLANIN: May I ask whether it is the fact that the Southern Parliament is meeting shortly for the express purpose of considering these proposals and that therefore a number of- members of that Parliament are being released for the express purpose of taking part in the discussion of these proposals; and whether the proposals will be divulged to the members of that Parliament, but will not be divulged to this Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is difficult for me to answer the noble Lord, for the reason anticipated by Lord Crewe. Certainly, I myself am very imperfectly in the confidence of those who are representing Ireland as to what precisely their intentions are, as to whether the meeting on Tuesday will come to a decision, whether their discussion will be in public or not, and whether there will be an understanding or not. If matters are discussed in public with the result that these proposals become known, of course they must be divulged at, once, and there is no reason which would induce the Government to hold them back
368
a day if they were Hot convinced that their premature disclosure would do harm. If, however, they are made known there, of course they must be made known in this country, in one form or other, and I will, of course, acquaint my colleagues of what has been said by Lord Crewe, following Lord Salisbury, as to the mischief which might ensue if these proposals were made known in Ireland and were not known here.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House has been good enough to tell me that he can give us some information about the arrangement of business which, I am sure, will interest your Lordships.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the information does not go very far. Last week I expressed the hope that we might conclude all stages of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill to-night. The importance of the Amendments inserted during the Committee stage, however, and the scale and range of the Amendments which are to be discussed to-day, obviously make any expectation of that kind impossible of fulfilment. I would, therefore, suggest that after the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill on Friday next we proceed with the concluding stage of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill. My noble friend, Lord Peel, tells me that he does not anticipate the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill will take very long, and I should be glad of an opportunity of consulting your Lordships later on to-day as to whether you would desire the House to meet earlier on Friday or at our normal time in the afternoon.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask whether that means that the noble Earl does not propose to enter on the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill at all to-day?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Oh, yes; the Report stage to-day, and the Third Reading on Friday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend did not mention the Railways Bill. I understand it is in contemplation to take the Second Reading to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With regard to the Committee stage friends have intimated to me that there ought to hp an interva1 of several days between the two. It is a very complicated matter. I do not want to raise any difficulty about taking the Second Reading to-morrow although that is a very strong step, considering the importance of the Bill but there might lie matters.—not polemical matters, but matters of importance—to be raised in Committee. The suggestion has been made to me that the Bill ought not to be lint down, ale any rate, before Wednc6day of next week.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We certainly propose to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill to-morrow. The Bill is in the House already. I should very much regret if we had to put off the Committee stage until Wednesday. I had hoped we might begin it on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is impossible.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: A number of Peers whom I consulted, and who are interested in the Bill, are axon; to have it on Monday.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: There is a division of opinion; your Lordships must not think that, everybody wants it postponed after Monday. A number of Peers have asked me to put down the Committee stage for that day; but I think probably the best thing is to watch the course of the debate to-morrow and we shall then see whether Monday is an acceptable day to your Lordships as a whole. I would renew the expression of a hope that we may begin the Committee stage on Monday, though I will not press it unless your Lordships agree.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot help thinking that Monday is rather soon, considering the extreme complexity of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Earl perhaps without coming to a. decision at this moment will bear in mind that there is a strong feeling, which my noble friend. Lord Salisbury, tells me hats been pressed
370
by a good many of his friends, that Monday is very soon, especially as the Second Beading is going to be taken at very short, notice. Perhaps the noble Earl as he is in a communicative mood, might be able to make some further forecast regarding the. Safeguarding of Industries I under-stand that I he consideration of the Bill will be consideration on Friday in another place, and do not know whether the noble Earl has contemplated when the Second night be talon here.
THE EARL OF CARWFORD: I hope to-morrow to be able to express a view about that point. I will, of course, bear in mind Mint Lord Crewe says, but en reranche, will he hoar in mind what I said about Ho, desire of other Peers to proceed with the Committee stage On Monday.

RAILWAYS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
WATER UNDERTAKINGS (MODIFICATTON OF CHARGES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a;and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BAARNSLEY EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
MANCHESTER (POLICE, & C.)PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO.1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PERERHEAD HARBOURS ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a, (according to Order), and passed.
GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (DUNDONALD BURSARIES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ZION CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL (FRAMPTON COTTERELL) CHARITY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: This Bill is intended to confirm a scheme, which is identical with similar schemes which have been confirmed by Parliament within the last few years. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

TERRITORIAL ARMY AND MILITIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the Title of the Bill of which I now move the Second Reading describes it as an Act to provide for the application of new designations to the Territorial Force and to the Special Reserve." The whole object of this Bill, in fact, is to give statutory effect to decisions which have been already arrived at, affecting the titles of the Territorial Force and the Special Reserve. Those titles are to be altered to "Territorial Army" and "Militia."
The legislation lags a good deal behind the announcement, because the announcement of this decision was made so long ago as January 30, 1920, by the then Secretary of State for War. I should like to read to your Lordships the exact words in which that decision was communicated:
"We propose that the British Army in future shall be organised in two main branches—the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. Both these branches will be completely self-contained. The Regular Army will have associated with it the Special Reserve battalions necessary to provide it with its own drafts in time of war. We contemplate for these battalions providing them with their old name—the Militia—which has the merit of being honourable, well-understood, and short."
As regards the first point—the Territorial Army—I should like to say that the
372
present strength of that Army is nearly 128,000 officers and men—that is to say, 121,000 other ranks, and 6,750 officers. Had it not been for the unfortunate interference of the great strike and the consequent delay in recruiting, there is no question that the strength of that Army would by this time have been something like 150,000 officers and men.
A very good reason for changing the name, or for calling this force an Army, is that it corresponds to the facts—namely, it is not a force but an Army, because it is well equipped not only with the different arms but it has its own corps and Army troops which constitute an Army in the modern sense of the term. Therefore, calling it an Army is inertly recognising the existing state of affairs. I may also say that the giving of this wider and more honourable title is some recognition of the great place that the Territorial Force has won for itself by its long and distinguished service during the late war.
The other question is that of the Militia. There again, the change is one purely of name. I believe I am right in saying that there is a very general concensus of agreement and approval among those who are competent to speak for the Special Reserve that they very much prefer the old name of Militia, with all its great traditions, to the somewhat newly-coined phrase The Special Reserve, and also the Extra-Special Reserve. There is, too, a very practical reason, I think, for making this change—that the public have never really understood exactly what the Special Reserve is. They know and are familiar with the name of Militia, and for recruiting purposes it is really far more valuable to call the force by a name which will attract recruits than by a name which, however ingeniously contrived, has not caught the public ear.
The officers of the Special Reserve will become officers of the Militia by a Royal Warrant which will be issued in due course. There are certain changes which become necessary or which it is useful to make as the result of these changes of name. The substitution of the term Militia for that of Special Reserve may be said to involve as a consequence, anyhow for the sake of clearness, the repeal of all the enactments that permitted the raising of the old Militia, whose terms of service were governed by the Militia Acts and not by the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907.

373
Your Lordships will remember, of course, that the Special Reserve was created in 1907–8 to take the place of the old Militia, and provision was Militia made for transferring it to the existing Militia battalions under the new terms and conditions of service. The special Reserve is part of thin Army Reserve, and the new Militia will be in the same position. It is only the name that has been changed.
Therefore, in the present Bill, we propose to sweep away a long list of previous Acts including the old enactment for the Militia Ballot. Your Lordships are well aware that a great deal of it has really become of piece of picturesque legislative lumber; that. the old 'Militia Ballot is wholly unequal to the facts of the day: that in the last war. when forces had to be raised they were raised by a general system of conscription; and that if in the future such forces had to be raised it would not be possible to go back to the old Militia Acts. Therefore, the whole of them are swept away in the schedules. Advantage is also taken of this Bill to repeal the old yeomanry Acts. Those Acts, exactly in the same way as those relating to the Militia, have, for long, been obsolete and no Yeomanry have been raised under theta. The Yeomanry, of course have been part of the Territorial Farce since 1907–8 and are governed by the provisions of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907. Therefore, besides providing for a charge of name, this Bill is a sort of clearing up of all these previous Statutes which have now become obsolete.
I have already given the present strength of the new Territorial Army, and I know that certain noble Lords, among them my noble friend opposite are much interested in the question of what is being done with the Militia, but I very much regret to say that I am unable to give any but very meagre information upon the subject. In fact, all these questions connected with the Militia are now under consideration and decisions have not yes been taken upon them—such questions, for instance, as what is' to be done with the extra-reserve battalions, and whether there is to be a corresponding number of Militia battalions, we will say, to the number of Infantry battalions in the Army. A Committee was appointed and, I believe, has reported upon this matter, and its suggestions are under consideration. But the noble Lord is well
374
aware of the difficulties which arise, and which 1Inist necessarily arise, if the recruiting and the reconstitution of the Militia are very long delayed. Although at present no date for re starting recruiting for the Militia has vet been fixed, the Commands at home are bearing in mind the necessity for obtaining suitable Anion; for the future, and ale doing their best by personal reconnaissance to deal with the matter.
Then, again, beyond the Infantry, there is the further question of other arms, and suggestions are being considered as to whether these other arms—Artillery, Engineers and so on should be raised as separate units: and whether, as regards the other corps, there should be something inure in the nature of a general pool—that is to say not units front which men could be drafted, as necessary, in time of war. I am compelled, in fact. I have been asked by the Secretary of State, to say that all these questions in regard to the reorganisation, the reconstitution, the recruiting, and the establishment of officers of the units of the Militia are now under consideration, but no decisions have been arrived at. Therefore, I very much regret that that is all the information.I am able to give my noble friend upon the subject. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Dill he now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, this Bill proposes to make three main changes. One is the repeal of the existing Militia Acts. With that I entirely agree. The existing Militia Acts are, theoretically at any rate, substantial Acts which could come into operation and be enforced by a Militia Ballot to-morrow, were it not for the Militia Ballot Act which we pass every year. It is obvious that that. is a matter of substance which cannot be dealt with by a mere Statute Law revision provision, although, no doubt, it is true that morally, as distinguished from legally, those Acts are inert, and could not without a commotion be put into operation.
The second point is the alteration of the name of Territorial Force into that of Territorial Army. I do not think that is very important. Territorial Army is a popular name to give to the territorial second line force, but I wish to point out that when you have an Army you have separate regiments composing it. Now you have no separate regiments composing the Territorial Force. All you have are

375
the 4th, or 5th, or 6th,or whatever it may be—during the war it ran up to the 27th and 30th—battalions of certain regiments. The first three on all occasions were a special reserve of the 4th battalion. The first four constitute the Regular Army, the remainder constituted the territorial second line force. I think the objection to calling it an Army is merely a technical one, but it is not an Army properly so called because it has no separate regiments, the battalions being parts of the same regiment.
But with our loose habits about military things in this country, and the extraordinary indifference that prevails, I do not think any very great damage is likely to be done by a transition from the old name, Territorial Force my preference for which is partly due perhaps to the fact that I found the name myself to the name Territorial Army. In substance, it is true, this was a second line Army which was not to be put into the field until it had had a certain amount of training, but during the war it performed such magnificent service, and was, in substance, a second line Army, that it is quite right, if it is so desired, that it should be so recognised. I only want to point out that it is illogical, and from a military point of view wrong, but so little attention nowadays is paid to what, from a military point of view, is right that we need not much trouble ourselves about one more departure.
I now come to the third point, which is the change of the nature of the Special Reserve to the Militia. That, to me, is a very serious and a very retrograde step. It is a name that carries von back to the state of confusion and muddle in which the Forces of the crown were before the passing of the Territorial Reserve Forces Act of 1907. In those days Lord Cardwell had established, as regards the Infantry and as regards the Infantry only, his system, and it was the system under which we had what was called "short service" seven years with the colours, and five with the reserve; and the reserve men were, in the main, in the second battalions which Lord Cardwell established. The home battalion was abroad, and the men who reinforced it, and who could themselves be mobilised as an independent battalion if necessary, were the reserves and the recruits who had been sufficiently trained with the second battalion. The effect of that was that we had no reliable Expeditionary Force at
376
all, because the second battalions were required to provide the drafts to make up losses in the first battalions, and if they were used as independent units obviously they could not fulfil the two functions.
What used to be done was that the Militia force was made use of for supplying draft. I remember Lord Lansdowne saying in this House that the Militia was a force which was plundered at one end and pillaged at the other. It was used to produce drafts for the regular battalions across the water, or wherever they might be, and the result was that the Militia battalions had their best strength taken away from them, and they became ineffective and feeble. Moreover, they had no organisation, no transport, no medical service, no Artillery, and no Cavalry to operate with them, and if you wished to find any force which was utterly incompetent, judged by the standards of modern military requirements, the best thong to turn to study was the old Militia force. I will not say that it was useless, because it supplied valuable drafts. Moreover, it gave occupation to a number of high-minded English country gentlemen who had military tastes, and who trained the Militia battalions which they commanded under, I think, a sort of vague hope that somehow or another they might be called upon to volunteer for war, as they were called upon, and successfully called upon, to volunteer in the South African campaign, but they never willingly realised that the first duty of Militia was to supply drafts which the second Regular battalions could not supply, and for the supply of which the Militia were called on.
In that state of things, when the year 1906 came, I was Secretary of State for War, and I found a situation which was intolerable. I consulted with eminent soldiers—men like Lord Haig, and others who were at the War Office, and the advantage of whose advice I then possessed—and We determined that if we were to have a military force in this country the first thing that was necessary was to get rid of the notion that there could be three lines, as there were in those days, and that the Militia could be a separate line, and to recognise the foundational fact that the primary function of Militia was to supply drafts for the Regular battalions. With that in view the Territorial Reserve Forces Act was passed. What was its effect? The Militia was to be an in-

377
dependent Army It was not a second lien Army at all, because, as I have said, it never had any transport, any medical service, any Artillery, and it had no Cavalry to make it a fighting force, bat it was very valuable in so far as it supplied excellent drafts for the first and second battalions. We were in earnest on that occasion, and we made the Militia the third battalion of the Regular regiment. Where there were two Militia battalions available we added a fourth. There were some fourth battalions of Regular regiments, and they were called Special Reserves to distinguish them from the General Reserve, which consisted of those men who had served three or seven years with the Colours, had passed into the Regular battalions, and had gone into the Reserves. That was why the Special Reserve got that name.
The noble Viscount said that one objection to the name was that the public did not understand it. Good heavens! what does the public understand about anything military in this country? I am not saying that I desire that they should be keen about, it, but we lout spent years and years of work in reorganising the Army, and making it a force capable of swift mobilisation, and the public knew so little about it, and took so little interest in it, that they did not realise that any change had been made. So I believe it is in large measure to-day. I do not wonder that the noble Viscount says the public do not realise what the Special Reserve was. The public has very little knowledge of the organisation of the Army, and I am afraid that deficiency of knowledge is not wholly confined to the man in the street.
That being so, the reason why the name Special Reserve was adopted was a definite, specific, scientific reason. It was absolutely requisite for military purposes. In Army organisation there is nothing which does you so much damage as an ambiguous name. As soon as you begin to talk of a Militia line as an independent line, the Militia commanding officers get into their heads that their true function is not to train men in order to supply drafts to go to stations on the coast and protect them during war, but they get into their heads that their business is to be officers and colonels in a force the function of which is to take part in fighting abroad like any other part of His Majesty's Forces. The objection to that is that the
378
Old Militia force was not fit to take part in any such war. It would have been moved down if it had gone into war, and such a force always will be mowed down unless it is regularly organised and put upon a modern military footing, as every Army must be before it can be effective.
Therefore, it is not merely on account of the change or name that I am objecting. I am objecting because it means going back and giving countenance to the old notion that the Militia really was an effective fighting force in itself. In the future it is to fulfil something of the same function as it did in the old days, and to be looked upon as an independent line different from the Regular line. To-day the Militia has only one function, the function of a special reserve. I was glad to notice that the noble Viscount himself recognised that. The noble Viscount said, in effect: "Let us repeal all these ridiculous Militia Acts which are only embarrassment to the true function of the Militia, the true function being to do the duties which the Special Reserve does to-day. He said that owing to the ignorance of the public and, I fear, the prejudices of the survivors of the old class of Militia officers, the Government have yielded to the desire that the name should be restored. Anything worse from a military point of view I find it difficult to conceive.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that. I did not talk about the prejudices of the Militia officers.
VICOUNT HALDANE: I understood the noble Lord to say that there haul been a. great deal of representation made to the Government, about the desirability of going back to the old name.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said it had received consideration by those competent to speak of Militia forces. I was only objecting to the word prejudice "being attributed to me.
VICOUNT HALDANE: Who are those competent to speak? Does the noble Viscount suggest that men like Lord Haig, or any of the generals who distinguished themselves in the war, made representations to the War Office about going back to the name of Militia? I should be astounded if he told me that across the Table. The people to whom he listened wore not those I persons. The persons

379
competent to speak were the persons accustomed to train their Own Militia troops—an admirable thing to do, and they rendered a great service in doing it, only they trained them, or ought to have trained them, for the purpose of supplying drafts to the Regular Army.
Those really competent to speak will tell the noble Viscount that that is the one function which justifies the maintenance of the Special Reserve. No Special Reserve battalion is over intended to take the field. The Special Reserve is intended to supply drafts. The Special Reserve performed noble functions during the war which I think ought to be recognised. The 3rd battation, and on occasion the, 4th battalion, sent to supply losses in the 1st and 2nd battalions in front of them, as many as 10,000 or 12,000 men in some cases. Those recruits were constantly being trained in the 3rd battalion at home, and as they were recruited they were sent out. I will give your Lordships one instance. When the Battle of the Marne came the Expeditionary Force had sustained tremendous attacks from the Germans. It had suffered an enormous number of casualties, and the Germans were confidently reckoning that when they got to the Marne they would find the French, no doubt, but a broken and beaten British Army hammered to pieces. But one thing the Germans did not know, and that was the organisation of the Special Reserve. They were like the British public—they did not know quite what it meant. They did not realise when we shifted our base at that time, and it was possible to bring round fresh men, that those men were brought from the Special Reserve battalions in such numbers that practically Lord French had a new British Expeditionary Force at the Battle of the Marne, made up of the men who had been so admirably trained in the Special Reserve battalions.
For that, great credit is due to the commanders, but still more credit is due to those great soldiers who raised the standard of training and who set that standard so high that the Special Reserve men, although trained for a shorter period, were quite fit to take their places in the Regular battalions. Sir Charles Douglas was the person to whom most credit was due for that. The Special Reserve was the apple of his eye, and, dissociated from all its bad old traditions, he said—" This is no Militia; this is the force from which we will keep our battalions alive, despite any
380
hammering they may get." And ha was absolutely justified in that.
I think I have said enough to show your Lordships why I look with extreme repugnance on this change of name. It is an indication of a tendency to revert to the old bad organisation which we had in the clays before the Great War, an organisation which, if we had had to depend upon it, one would not have been able to predict that the war would have had the same result as it ultimately had. What was done was clone after the gravest consideration. The competent opinion that was relied upon was the competent opinion of the first soldiers in the British Army, and the name was deliberately chosen to get rid of that which was putting great obstacles in the way. I know it is not agreeable, when you have been accustomed to training your Militia battalion in your own way, to have a great change made, and a great change was made in 1907, but it was a change which was necessitated in the public interest. It is because it was in the public interest and because the change that was made was one which resulted in a great increase of efficiency, which is threatened, I think, by this change of name, that I for one very much deprecate the part of this Bill which contains that alteration.
I do not propose to move the rejection of the Bill, because it has passed the other House and it represents the settled policy of the Government, but. I should be wanting in my duty as an ex-Secretary of State for War if I did not put on record the strongest protest against going hack to a name which connotes the old bad tradition.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I speak on behalf of a great number of Militia and Special Reserve officers who are organised for the purpose of preserving the traditions and safeguarding the interests of the old Constitutional Force. I have for some time had a Motion on the Paper in regard to the constitution of the Special Reserve or the Militia, and the only reason why I have not asked His Majesty's Government to be good enough to fix a day for discussing that Motion was because my noble friend who speaks for the War Office told me from time to time that the Army Council were not yet in a position to give me a definite answer. There was, therefore, no point in troubling him. That is why I have seized this opportunity of saying what I have to say.

381
We were told in the other House that the Bill dealt merely with the change of name and nothing else. I am afraid I cannot accept that view. The debate in the other House, and the remarks that have just been made by the noble Viscount On this side, are a sufficient refutation of the somewhat careless and inaccurate statement made by the Under-Secretary in the House that the Bill dealt with names and names only. I should like to make a few remarks on what the noble Viscount has just said. In the first place, he said that the Territorial Army could not be an Army because if had not got separate regiments. If the noble Viscount was correct and sound in his reasoning then none of the Armies under the command of Generals like Lord Byng or Lord Plumer contained separate regiments. In the First Army you might have had one or two battalions of the Hampshire Regiment, in the Fourth Army you might have had four or five battalions—
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It was a war organisation.
LORD AMPTHILL: Nevertheless, they were Armies. The noble and learned Viscount seemed to apprehend that the change of name would bring about a reversion to a state of things which he described as one of disorder and confusion. I fail to see how the mere change of name can have that effect. It is said "Give a dog a bad name and hang him," and the noble and learned Viscount, when he named the Special Reserve, Witch was once the old Constitutional Force of this country, did more harm than it is possible to describe. He also quoted from Lord Lansdowne that "The Militia was plundered at one end and pillaged at the other". The noble and learned Viscount's reforms did not alter that state of things. The same condition of affairs, plundering at one end and pillaging at the other, went on all through the country in spite of his wonderful reforms.
Most of your Lordships, I think, will have been pained by the disparaging remarks which the noble and learned Viscount made about the old Militia, which he described as utterly incompetent and existing only as an occupation for country gentlemen. He appears to know very little about the history of the old Militia, and I shall be obliged to take up some of your Lordships' time in reminding you of what the Militia did in times gone by and
382
how indispensable it has been to the Army at all times, not merely for the purpose of providing drafts but for sending out units to the front. The noble and learned Viscount said I hat the Special Reserve could not be called out at once, because they were utterly unfit and would have been mowed down. Apparently, he does not know that they were mowed down with the "Old Contemptibles," and they were there because the Army could not have kept the field for two months but for the men it provided.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Lord has totally misunderstood me. I did not say that the Special Reserve did not do splendid service. They did splendid service in furnishing drafts for the Regular battalions. Not one of them could have gone out independently.
LORD AMPTHILL: The noble and learned Viscount is wrong again. But I will leave him and will come to the Bill. I welcome the Bill as a reiteration and confirmation of the announcement made by tile Government eighteen months ago that the Special Reserve would be retained and reconstituted. At that time there was very grave and general alarm amongst those who knew lest the old Constitutional Force should be abolished. I also welcome the change of name for reasons which I will explain. First of all, I want to say how deplorable it seems to me, and to all those for whom I speak—and it has been admitted by the noble and learned Viscount—that all this tithe should have been allowed to pass. It is again a case of "Too late," as it has so often been with the Government. Eighteen months ago you could have reconstituted your Militia with ease and, as events have proved, with immense advantage. It is a question how far von will be able to do so now you have postponed it for so long. The delay has lost you officers and men who would have made the force invaluable to pm at the present time.
During all these months of delay and uncertainty there have been great anxiety and dissatisfaction among Special Reservists, because, as it seemed to us, the force was being allowed to expire without a hope of resuscitation. We saw with dismay the enforced retirement, in circumstances which might be criticised as having no statutory sanction, of a large number of officers, many of whom had distinguished

383
themselves during the war, and who would have been invaluable in reforming the force, You have been invaluable in reforming the force. You have lost those officers for ever. We also saw the Suspension of recruiting, with the result that the force at the present time is practically non-existent. The only reason given for this incomprehensible and calamitous inaction is that of economy. But what false economy it has proved to be. When the special emergency, which the general public fully anticipated and expected arose, you had to form an entirely new military force ad hoc, the Defence Force; and you had to deplete the Territorial Army to do so. What is going to be the cost of that force to the taxpayer? When the accounts are published, if they ever are, it will be found that it has cost us an amount vastly exceeding that which we should have spent if we had the old Militia or the Special Reserve. Thousands of officers were called up; were not wanted; and were paid all the time the Defence Force was in existence. That is an instance of the extravagance that was perpetrated.
The old Constitutional Force, whether you call it Militia or Special Reserve, is the proper military organisation to aid the civil power, for that is a duty which only they and the regular soldiers are eligible to perform. In the past the Militia has been repeatedly utilised in aid of the civil power. It was done, and could be done now, without any special legislation or fuss or disturbance in Parliament. The most notable occasions were the Great Fire of London in 1666, the Gordon Riots in 1780, and the Luddite disturbances in 1812; and there have been numerous lesser occasions. The Government cannot say that no one warned them of the probable contingency of civil disturbance. The general public wore fully prepared for the crisis which actually arose, and Special Reserve officers did not fail to point out, so far as they had opportunity and means, that the reconstitution of the force was an imperative necessity on that very account.
It was rumoured that the Government were afraid that they would not got recruits for the Territorial Force if they recruited for the Special Reserve at the same time, and that they would be unable to bolster up the so-called voluntary system. But the authorities who entertained that fear do not seem to have realised that recruits for the Special Reserve or Militia are generally drawn front a totally different class from those
384
who used to go into the old Volunteers or Territorial Force. The men who went Into the Militia were men of that class front which the regular soldiers are drawn, and nothing could be more deplorable than to leave that field for recruitment untouched as has been dome in the past two years. Unless unemployment and those grimly effective recruiting, sergeants, cold and hunger, come to your; aid, you are not going to get enough recruits for the Regular Army unless you get your Militia going again. It has always been the antechamber to the Army. Men have tried what military life is like by going into the very large number of them were Persuaded on that account to take up regular enlistment. Without the Militia you never could at any tune have kept up the Regular A laity on tin' voluntary system. The position now is that it is very doubtful whether you will be able to revive the You have left it too late.
The Under-Secretary, in the House of Commons, treated this Bill, if I play say so, in a very off-hand and perfunctory manner and made some statements which seemed to me exceedingly reckless. He said that the Bill hail nothing to do with the raising or establishment or conditions of service of either force. If your Lordships will look at the Bill, you will see that.the first paragraph of Clause 4 runs as follows
The power to raise and maintain a force or a Yeomanry force under any of the enactments set out in the Second Schedule of this Act shall cease, and those enactments shall be repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
A glance at the schedule will show your Lordships what a vast number of laws dealing actually with the raising, establishment and conditions of service of the Militia are being repealed, and that among them is the Militia Ballot Act. And yet, forsooth! we are told by a member of the Government that this Bill does nothing more than change the name. I do not think that any more remarkable statement has ever been made in Parliament.
I do not object to the repeal of any of these Acts. I accept the view of the Government that they are legislative lumber. But the repeal of the Militia Ballot Act does affect a very large question of principle and it is one to which I feel entitled to invite your Lordships' attention. The fact is that at the present time England is the only country in which conscription

385
exists; I mean conscription in the true sense of the term. I am quite aware that no term has ever been so abused or misused for political purposes; but conscription actually means the enrolment of citizens in a professional Army by lot, a system by which the rich can purchase substitutes among the poor, and so get exempted themselves. Everywhere in Europe that system was abolished long ago, because it was unfair, undemocratic and ineffective, and every European nation substituted the more democratic and just system of universal service. To-day, conscription survives in this country alone, and yet you have responsible people, speaking for the Government, who talk as if the proposals of those advocating universal service in this country were proposals for the antiquated system of conscription which existed in the Napoleonic wars. I frankly welcome the disappearance from our Statute Book of a principle which is utterly out of harmony with democratic institutions and with existing conditions; more particularly so because it clears the way for that fairer and more democratic system of universal service which we were obliged to adopt in the war, and which we shall be obliged to adopt again, if ever—which God forbid—we have to go to war again on the same scale.
The Under-Secretary also said that the Special Reserve was in some respects the lineal descendant of the Militia. In some respects, my Lords! In what respects was there any break of continuity? When the Militia received the unfortunate designations of Special Reserve or Extra Special Reserve and had to undertake more serious duties than before—duties which were gladly undertaken—there was no other change. The battalions retained their old names and their old Colours, and the same officers and the same men went on serving. There was complete continuity of tradition and of everything that goes to constitute a corporate body. Just as well might you say that any member of your Lordships' House who has won some higher dignity or new title was in some respects a lineal descendant of his own father and grandfather. Whether you become a Marquess or a crossing-sweeper—and some of us may have to face the latter contingency if the present state of affairs continues much longer—you do not alter the facts of your birth and breeding. There is, and there always has been, as, indeed, the noble
386
Viscount has admitted, a deplorable amount of ignorance about the history and services of the Militia. I was particularly glad to hear the noble Viscount suggest that that ignorance was not confined to the man in the street. I go so far as to say, and I know it is a fact, that that ignorance prevailed even in the War Office.
The Militia of England dates back to the period of King Alfred, and since that time it has been the Constitutional Force of the country. The Militia is therefore far more ancient than the Regular Army. It is just as well to remind ourselves of these things, seeing that the noble Viscount seemed to think that the Militia was a comparatively modern pastime for the. country gentleman. There is no finer war trophy in this country than the bells of Agincourt, which the men of Monmouth brought back with them from that campaign, and which are still ringing in the church steeple. At the threatened invasion of the Spanish Armada, forty-three regiments of"trained bands," or Militia, were in existence, and performing military duties. At the time of the Monmouth Rebellion, in 1685, a portion of the Militia was called out and fought at Sedgemoor, and also during the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745. During the Seven Years' War, from 1756 to 1763, fifty units were embodied for permanent service. In the American War of Independence sixty-seven units were embodied. From 1793 to 1802, and again from 1803 to 1816, the whole Militia was embodied, and during that period the Regular Army was very largely recruited from it. A complete Militia Brigade served in the Peninsular War under Major-General Sir Henry Bayly. This is in answer to the noble Viscount.
The noble Viscount rails at the Militia officers because they would not understand his system that they were only to provide drafts. They had these 'traditions of service abroad before them; they were proud of them, and wished to keep them alive. In the Waterloo campaign large numbers of men were drafted to the Army, and at the Battle of Waterloo itself many men were wearing their Militia uniforms. During the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny the whole force was embodied, and a large number volunteered for active service. Certain battalions served abroad, and the Regular Army drew large numbers of men from them for the seat of war. During the South African War the whole force was embodied, as is within your Lordships' recollection.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: A lot of battalions went to South Africa.
LORD AMPTHILL: Yes, sixty-one battalions of Militia, six batteries of Artillery, and four companies of Royal Engineers Militia went to South Africa, and at the head of them were members of your Lordships' House; while nine battalions served in Egypt and elsewhere. The noble Viscount has got into his head the notion that the Militia has never been anything else but a drafting machine, and a pastime for the country gentleman. Such is the history of a force of which the Under-Secretary spoke as if it has never been raised for anything except home defence. Such were the traditions which were swept into oblivion, as far as the public were concerned, by the unfortunate change of name in 1908. Can your Lordships doubt that all old Militiamen and Special Reservists who know anything at all about the past, desire the restoration of the time-honoured name of Militia, which was in use as far back as 1558? Of the present units, 47 were raised and have been in continual existence since 1660, and some of them are still older. The name of Special Reserve has never caught on. It conveys nothing to the general public. At the time when that name was inaugurated, there were nine different forms of Reserve in existence, and educated people very often mistook the Militiaman, who was compelled to call himself a Special Reservist, for a member of the National Reserve; that is to say, the gentlemen over sixty who used to turn out once a year in bowlers or top-hats and umbrellas in order to show what very large numbers were available for the defence of the country.
The noble Viscount claimed that it was a scientific name based on definite principles of military nomenclature. The impression it gave to the general public was that it was a suggestion of some vintage of wine or vat of spirits. The name Extra Special Reserve was humiliating and ridiculous to those who had to bear it, and the proof that it was not acceptable, from the scientific or military point of view, is the fact that the military authorities dropped it from the moment the war began. From that moment the name was never used in any official document or Army Order. It was said in the House of Commons that the name Special Reserve had acquired special significance and creditable distinction
388
in the war. That is not so. The Special Reserve obtained distinction, but the name did not, because it was dropped and was never used in any official document or pronouncement. It is also the case that the work of the Special Reserve, a direct continuation of the work of the Militia in all former wars, was quite unknown to those in authority and has been completely ignored, or there could never have been any question of abolishing the Special Reserve immediately the war was over.
The Army could not have kept the field for three months without the Special Reserve. The new Armies could not have been formed without the Special Reserve, nor could the Territorial Force have been trained if the Special Reserve had not relieved them of duties for which they were not prepared, the duties for which Volunteers and Territorials actually exist. The sick and wounded could never have been patched up again for service but for the Special Reserve. The whole of the Special Reserve units were mobilised in 1914 with the Regular Army, and it took over the training of officers and men for drafts. It may interest your Lordships to hear a few figures. The average number of men trained and despatched to battalions in the field per Special Reserve unit was 667 officers and 17,458 men, which gives a total of 67,307 officers and 1,763,258 other ranks. Taking the total number of men raised in the British Empire at about 8,000,000 men the Special Reserve were responsible for training approximately a quarter of the whole.
Such was the work which has received no particular mention, and for which the only reward is the proposal to abolish the force. Such was the work for which not even a medal has been granted to noncommissioned officers and men who broke their hearts staving at home, and who did the work of training, without rest or intermission—far harder work than anything abroad, and work for which every kind of other organisation has got recognition. That is going to go very much against you when you try to reorganise the Militia. The Army has never been able to do without the Militia, and unless you intend to raise the Army by continental methods you have got to keep up the Militia. That is why I welcome this Bill as an earnest of the intention of the Government, but I hope that there will be no further delay about

389
the reconstitution of the force and about recruiting.
As regards the change of name from Territorial Force to Territorial Army, I think that it is unquestionably a compliment, and one to which this gallant force has established an absolute claim; but although I yield to none in admiration for the Territorial Army, I feel obliged to ask why it is given precedence over the Militia. The title of the Bill and the sequence of the clauses give to the Territorial Army a definite precedence to which it has no shadow of a claim. Why should you take away from the old Constitutional force of the Militia a position which the Territorial Force would not grudge them, and which nobody would grudge them who knows the history of England? I understand from what.the Under-Secretary said that the Bill only provides for a change of name and not a change of duties. I do not advocate any change of duties, but what I do advocate is that there should be additional duties.
The one grievance which we of the Special Reserve will never get over is that on winch the noble Viscount vaunted himself so much—namely, the system under which we were not allowed to go out as units. There were many times during the war on which every reserve battalion could have gone out as a unit and yet left behind a large cadre for training and drafting purposes—a cadre of which every officer and man would have been full of actual experience of war. We copied everything from the German system with regard to building up and maintaining our Armies, except that one thing. The Germans had similar reserve battalions, and took good care that they should go to the front and not lose that prestige which is invaluable to any corps and which goes to make up tradition. The Militia will never get over the fact that they did not go out as units. Every single officer or man went out in one form or other except those who, for sonic reason, were unfit, but the fact that we did not go out as units is a thing which we shall never get over. From the Army point of view it was a very great mistake, because you could have sent out units not once, but two or three times over. Instead, you only formed units which had none of those cohesive elements.
Referring for a moment to the Bill itself, I welcome the change of name. I welcome the disappearance from our
390
Statute Book of our obsolete system of conscription, which we alone have maintained, and I hope that now you have given a name to the force, you will lose no further time about reconstituting it and opening recruiting.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I wish to say a word on one or two points before the Bill is read a second time. As a very old Militiaman, and one who is very proud of the fact, I thank my noble friend for the fervid and eloquent defence which he has made of the old Militia. I agree with him that the title of the Bill is wrong. It is an obvious slip of somebody in the War Office, and it ought to be the Militia and Territorial Army Bill. That, however, does not affect the question of precedence, because the Militia will always come before the Territorial Army.
I want to say something about what my noble friend, Lord Haldane, said. He connected two things which seemed to me to have no necessary connection whatever. I agree with him and with his military advisers that the main function of the Militia in modern wars is to supply drafts to the Regular battalions. I also agree that that does not, and ought not, to preclude their being sent out as units when occasion requires. While I agree that the main function of the Militia ought to be to supply drafts to the Regular battalions, with whom, under the county system, the connection is so close that there are three or four battalions of one regiment, there does not seem to me to be any connection between that fact and the hideous name of Special Reserve. I do not think Lord Haldane knew the extent to which his action in changing the name from Militia to Special Reserve was, and is, resented. And there is no necessary connection whatever between using the Militia battalions for drafting purposes and the change of name. Therefore, as an old Militiaman, I thank the War Office and the Army Council most cordially for giving us back their name, which has a great history behind it, and of which we are very proud.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC SERVICES IN INDIA.
LORD AMPTHILLhad given Notice to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government have accepted the principle advocated both by

391
the Government of India and the Joint Select Committee, that members of the public Services in India should, in certain circumstances, be permitted to retire on proportional pensions. The noble Lord said: My Lords the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for India was good enough to write to me in order to warn me that he would not be able to give me a definite answer to my Question to-day. But I have, nevertheless, troubled him to come here, because I hope that he will be able to assure us that there will be some announcement of the policy of the Government before Parliament rises.
The importance of this Question is far greater than appears on the surface, and it is not possible to explain it in a few sentences. The fact is that at the present time the incomparable loyalty of British officials in India is being very seriously strained, and It may well be near breaking point. The Government take the loyalty of the public Services in India for granted, but although Englishmen will stand a good deal in the cause of duty, there are some things to which as men, and as men of honour, they cannot submit. There is a limit beyond which no Englishman will go.
Your Lordships may perhaps have been satisfied by the recent assurance of the noble Earl who speaks for the India Office that there is nothing in the present state of India to cause inordinate anxiety or alarm, but I wonder whether your Lordships are aware that the prevailing distemper has actually touched the brains of the body politic in India. It is not only the placid contentment of the masses that has been disturbed, for there is something more than vague discontent among those —the officials, that is—who are responsible for the protection and guidance of those masses. I have a personal letter from India in which there is a significant sentence. The writer was speaking about general unrest, and he added:—
" The real unrest to-day is among the English officials."
Of that startling statement I have seen abundant proof, not only in private letters, but also in the Press.
The best thing I can do to explain the position is to let your Lordships hear it out of the mouths of those who are on the spot, and who are actually concerned; and I hope, therefore, your Lordships will allow me to read one or two brief extracts
392
from private letters. These letters were not all addressed to me; some of them Were written to friends who happened to meet me and who showed them to me. Here is one:—
" To those who are fully acquainted with the working of the Oriental mind it will be obvious that the general trend of high officials' speeches and announcements will very seriously undermine the moral influence which alone enables the solitary British official to carry on his work in the district."
This is another extract from the letter of a different person:—
" Personally,I feel that service under a Government which has definitely given up all pretence of governing is impossible. As a bachelor one might take the risk; but it is hateful to be forced to take it with one's hands tied. As a married man, however, it is obviously out of the question."
This is the third extract which I have noted. The letter, I may say, was not written to me. After similar remarks, the writer says:—
" I am sending you this so that you may be able to refute by a concrete example the self-satisfied folk at home who say all is well in India."
And here is another:—
" Mr. E. S. Montagu has stated in the House that he has had but one application to resign on account of the new régime. Let him announce anything in the nature of fair terms, and he will find ample vacancies to which to promote Indian officials."
The point is this. In spite of definite promises and assurances, no fair terms—no definite terms at all—for premature retirement have yet been announced, and the terms which the Secretary of State is believed to be pressing upon the Government of India are very far from fair.
There is a general feeling of bitterness because the promises held out to the Services in the Report of the Joint Committee on Indian Reform are not being fulfilled by those in authority. The Joint Committee, in paragraph 36 of their Report, put it on record that those Services have deserved the admiration and gratitude of the whole Empire, and that their position under the new conditions will be very difficult. They concluded with this definite assurance:—
" If there are members of the Service whose doubts as to the changes to be made are so deeply rooted that they feel they cannot usefully endeavour to take part in them, then the Committee think it would be only fair to those officers that they should be offered an equivalent career elsewhere, or, in the last resort, that they should be allowed to retire on such pension as the Secretary of State in Council may consider suitable to their period of service."

393
That proposal was the bare minimum of justice. It is not at all generous compared with the treatment which has been sanctioned for officials who will be retired from the Service under the Government of Ireland Act, and compared with what is suggested in the Milner Report for British officers in the Egyptian Service.
But the worst of it is, that the Secretary of State is generally credited, rightly or wrongly, with a desire to discount even this bare minimum of justice. Instead of acting in the spirit of the recommendation of the Joint Committee, he wishes (so it is said) to take an arbitrary and narrow interpretation of the letter only of that recommendation, instead of the spirit. He has read that recommendation to mean that he personally is to decide in each individual case. Officials in India who feel that they cannot usefully take part in the new scheme, and have asked for information in regard to the proportionate pension on which they might retire, have been told that no general scale will be laid down, and that the application will not be considered until it has been made clear to the Secretary of State by actual practice that the applicant cannot usefully continue to serve under the new conditions.
Your Lordships must agree with me that that is an intolerable condition, and one which is contrary to all the customs and traditions of our public Services. We have never entrusted such power to any individual, however eminent. The conditions of entry into the public Service, of service and, except in the case of flagrant conduct, of retirement, have always been governed by statutory Rules and Regulations, and thus placed beyond the arbitrary decision or the possible caprice of any individual in authority. No official will run the risk of being placed, so to speak, in the black book of the Secretary of State if his application to retire should not happen to find favour. It is easy to imagine what the fate of such an official would be. Your Lordships, no doubt, fully understand the kind of circumstances in which a British officer might find his position in India unendurable.
I dare say that many of your Lordships have heard from your friends in India what those circumstances and conditions are. To explain such circumstances in full and in writing might be a matter of exceeding delicacy, involving criticism of other officials both superior and subordinate. No man would care to submit
394
to an inquisition of that kind, and no man ought to be subjected to such an inquisition, unless he has to answer for misconduct before a court of justice. But this is not a case of misconduct. This is the case of men who have done honourable service and who, as the conditions under which they are serving are changed, have every right to be allowed to retire, without loss to their professional careers and their personal means. The case of an officer who does not get on in his regiment—the kind of case wit h which your Lordships are familiar—affords a. somewhat similar example of the kind of questions which would certainly arise. Englishmen dislike to see dirty linen washed in public, and there is a wise French saying, for which I know of no exact equivalent in English: Toutes les vérités ne sont pas bonnes à dire. Although we have no such saying it is a fortunate fact that we are all guided by that maxim in our public life, and it would be utterly lamentable, as well as unfair, if public officers were to be forced to make revelation of their opinions to those under whom they serve, or with whom they serve or over whom they are placed, in order to justify their claim for retirement.
The whole idea is un-English, illiberal, and reactionary. It savours of that"horridest arbitrariness "—if I may use the famous phrase of Oliver Cromwell—of which, in these modern times, only Radicals dressed in a little brief authority are capable. Unless some definite Regulations and conditions for premature retirement are laid down you will place your officials in India—the men who, according to the Joint Committee,"have deserved the admiration and gratitude of the whole Empire "—in a cruel dilemma. They will either have to render unwilling service, a position intolerable for them and bad for the Administration, or they will have to act in such a way as to get their retirement on grounds of unfitness. That is a very cruel position in which to place faithful servants of the Empire and of India.
I would beg your Lordships to bear in mind that I am not speaking only of those officials, comparatively few in number, who frankly express their dislike of the new policy. I am also speaking of the vast number of officials who accepted the changes with cheerful loyalty and began at once to play up for the reform scheme and to do their best for it. It is these men, the men who have been doing their

395
utmost to make the reform scheme a success, who are now filled with surprise, dismay, and alarm at the hostility which is being manifested towards them. I will not take up your Lordships' time by giving specific instances or illustrations; I will only say that these men are being made to feel in every possible way that India does not want them and that the sooner they clear out the better.
But, for the present at any rate, India cannot do without the British members of those splendid public Services with whose work nothing in the world can compare. The Leader of the House, in moving the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill, laid down certain essential conditions of reform, of which two are as follows:—Firstly, that nothing should be done to weaken the protection given by the British Raj to the vast multitudes to whom the franchise and the vote meant nothing; secondly; that there should be no lowering of the standard of the Civil Service, whose work in the past has enabled India to take the place she now occupies in the Empire and the world. These two conditions hang together. They are manifestly interdependent; for the welfare of the masses must depend, for many years if not indeed for generations to come, upon the efficiency of the Services. If you drive away the present officials by making their lot unendurable you will not get equally good men to go out from this country to succeed them and take their places, and the Services will inevitably deteriorate.
Your treatment of British officials in India is, therefore, the test of your sincerity so far as you profess to desire and to be working for the welfare of the peoples of India. Unless you support your faithful servants and loyal adherents you will lose them, and at the same time you will not gain those of other categories whom you are seeking to propitiate. Although our domestic pre-occupations at the present time are grave and anxious, numerous and overwhelming, we cannot afford to keep our public servants in India in suspense any longer. The delay in this matter has been disgraceful to the Government.
LORD SYDENHAM; My Lords, my I, as a member of the Joint Select Committee, add a few words to what has been said by my noble friend? The Committee was, I believe, perfectly unanimous as
396
regards the principle which my noble friend has brought before the House and certainly expected that the Secretary of State, himself a member of the Committee, would accept it and act upon it at once. But the noble Lord who rendered so much assistance to the Secretary of State during the proceedings of the Committee has told us that the Government of India wished to apply this principle not only to the Indian Civil Service but to the other great Services of the Crown in India. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place to-day to take his part in upholding the cause of those Services.
So far, the Secretary of State has done nothing to carry out this principle to which he, as a member of the Committee, assented. Nothing has been done, I think, except that the Secretary of State said in the House of Commons that he was prepared to consider case by case the instances that were brought to him of the people who wished to retire, and that only one such case, as I think my noble friend said, had been brought to Isis notice. He has shown that that sort of examination of each case is absolutely impossible. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this question, this really great grievance, can only be dealt with by rule and regulation and not by inquiry into specific cases. You cannot inquire into the motives of men, nor can you possibly investigate and analyse the consciences of individuals.
My noble friend quoted what was said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. There were other conditions which the noble Marquess laid down with which, he said, the Bill should comply. Those conditions were ignored just as much as this one has been. I pointed out at the time that under the terms of the Bill, when it came into operation, the Indian Civil Service would be doomed, and that, I think, is becoming more and more clear every day. Having seen their work in India I regard the Indian Civil Service as the finest administrative body we have ever created, and when it passes, as it assuredly will, our wonderful work in India will begin to crumble to pieces. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary for India appears to think that I exaggerate very much the situation and the tendencies in India. I sincerely hope that he is right and I am quite wrong, but I can only say that the information I am constantly receiving from Indians and Europeans

397
shows me that the situation is one of increasing gravity. I should not be in order to-day in trying to prove that statement, but I sincerely hope that the state of India will be fully discussed in your Lordships' House during the next session.
The Indian Civil Service is now loyally striving to do its duty in most difficult conditions. I would point out that it has been the subject of vile attacks and that every effort is being made to destroy its influence with the people of India. The annual touring of our district officers was one of the best means of bringing them into close touch with the real people, and of enabling them to administer justice on the spot and to remedy and remove all sorts of small grievances in village life. In some parts of India this touring has now become impossible because the villagers, who were perfectly friendly a short time ago, now boycott the district officers and refuse to give them any supplies. Most of our civil servants, the elder ones especially, are finding that the conditions under which they entered the Service have become completely changed. They have been, of course, or some of them have been, accustomed for a long time to serving under Indians, but those are Indians trained in the Service, who have learned its high traditions, and always in the past those civil servants had the protection of someone of their own race, with the Governor or Lieutenant-Governor behind to whom they could appeal.
All that is changed now by the application of the diarchical system to India. The trained and experienced civil servant may find that he has now to do all his work under an inexperienced politician who may have acquired office by his known hostility to the Government of India. One of these politicians lately sent to the subordinates of a senior civil servant to inquire from them what sort of a man he was, and what he was doing. That is the sort of thing which no British officer will stand. It is what my noble friend has described as "the limit." Nor can British officers be expected to look on while corruption and jobbery raise their heads, as is now happening in many parts of India.
There have been some startling cases of the removal of our officials, in obedience either to political clamour or to some secret influences, and I am afraid it is the ease that some of them now do not feel full confidence in the Government to defend them
398
if attacked, and to right them if they are wronged. It is part of the policy of ceasing to govern, which is leading towards disaster. Because of that policy our officials and friends in India are being discouraged and intimidated. Hostility to the Government brings rewards or concessions, and sometimes both. A very able Indian editor, who wrote to me by the last-mail, says this:
"The policy of the Government is to give the cold shoulder to their supporters, and to do anything to win the good will of their antagonists."
That is the policy which is threatening India with chaos. We can do nothing now to build up the great Services which are shaken to their foundations. But for those Services, let us remember, India would now be in a state as bad as that of Persia, which the noble Marquess described to us the other day.
We can relieve such of the public servants as find their position has become impossible, or incompatible with their sense of personal honour. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say that the principle which the Joint Committee unanimously adopted will be acted upon without further delay, and that he will be able to add that he will apply it also to the other great public Services—engineering, education and medical—which are now finding the same troubles before them. I may point out that the late Viceroy's Government was willing and anxious to apply the same terms to those other great Services.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I can, of course, give a reply only to the specific Question which my noble friend has put upon the Paper, and it is an unqualified affirmative. His Majesty's Government do certainly accept the principle advocated both by the Government of India and the Joint Select Committee, that members of the public Service in India should, in certain circumstances, be permitted to retire on proportional pension. The Secretary of State has already announced, in the House of Commons, his agreement with that principle.
It is not, I hope, necessary for me to say anything in defence of the Civil Service in India, but I agree entirely with what Lord Sydenham has said, that this is probably the finest administrative body in the world, and I yield to no one in my

399
admiration of the splendid individuals who form that great Service. Indeed, I believe my noble friend, Lord Ampthill, is doing them an injustice if he thinks that there is in that splendid body any large number of individuals who will be induced to surrender their work and retire from the Service merely because they are unpopular, or criticised, or because their difficulties are increased. But I agree with him—and on this, I think, there is no difference of opinion in any quarter—that men who strongly and conscientiously disagree with the present policy of the Government ought not to be forced to remain in the Service, and I also agree with him that those who take that view should be given an opportunity of retiring, and, if they do express a wish to retire, that they should be entitled to receive a proper portion of the pension which they have earned to date. On that point I do not think there is any difference of opinion in any quarter.
I should like to assure my noble friend that there is no foundation whatever for the views which he has heard, by rumour, attributed to the Secretary of State on this matter. If I may make the suggestion to him, I would strongly urge him not to be too ready to believe insinuations of this kind before there is some justification for them. On the question of delay, I think there is just ground for criticism. It is true, as my noble friend has suggested, that in the first instance the Secretary of State imagined that the best way of carrying out the recommendation of the Joint Committee would be to apply the principle which they recommended to every case when it is brought to his notice, but, as my noble friend has pointed out in his speech to your Lordships this afternoon; there is undoubtedly a strong case for dealing with the question as a whole by Regulation.
What I told my noble friend in my letter to him was that I could not give him any general statement to-day as to what the exact terms and details and conditions of such a Regulation would be. That matter has been referred to the Government of India for their decision, and we are, at this moment, awaiting their reply, but as soon as the reply is received, and the Government of India and the Secretary of State are in agreement as to what the terms and conditions of such a Regulation shall be, the Secretary of State will take the first opportunity of making them public.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, your Lordships will remember that shortly before Easter the noble Lord on the cross-benches (Lord Sydenham) raised this question, and asked me whether the Government intended to take any action in the matter. I replied that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the present session, and this measure is the fulfilment of the undertaking I gave on that occasion. Your Lordships will readily understand that at this late period of the session it is impossible to carry the Bill through all its stages, either in your Lordships' House or in another place. The matter is an exceedingly complicated one, and the object of introducing the Bill to-day to your Lordships is to enable all those persons concerned to know what the proposals of the Government are for meeting the strong demand which has been made for legislation on this subject. It also affords the Government an opportunity of knowing upon what points criticism is to be chiefly directed. By this means the legislation, which it is proposed to undertake in the next session, will be greatly facilitated, because the Government will then have the advantage of being able to consider carefully the criticism that may have been levelled at this Bill.
Turning to the Bill itself, I may say that the greater part of it consists either of consolidating provisions, or of provisions for the protection of policy holders, and to these provisions it is believed that the agreement of the companies and societies will be readily obtained. The Bill, as your. Lordships no doubt see, has been founded on the Report of the Departmental Committee which was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. I think the Bill practically carries out the whole of the recommendations of that Committee, though in one or two points there are differences between the Bill and the Report. In the main, however, the same ends are arrived at. I do not think I need draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions of the Report, which is on the Table of your Lordships' House. Those

401
provisions have already been discussed here.
I will, therefore, pass to the main points of the Bill, and indicate them briefly. Clause 1 provides a simplified definition by which industrial assurance is made to include all policies on which premiums are received by means of collectors at intervals of less than two months. As the law stands at present a society which confines its collecting operations within a radius of ten miles from its registered office is exempt from the statutory provisions applied to industrial assurance. This system has proved unsatisfactory in practice, especially in recent years, and we propose now to apply the same law to all organisations carrying on the same class of business irrespective of geographical limits.
Then I come to Clause 2, by which the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, who, as your Lordships know, already supervises collecting societies, will be charged with the supervision of the whole system of industrial assurance. So far as the companies are concerned, this supervision will take the place of the present system of receiving returns by the Board of Trade. An effective supervision will be substituted for what is now a. little more than a matter of recording. Clause 4 is founded on paragraph 42 of the Committee's Report. It departs a. little from the recommendation, but it is devised to meet the same ends. The clause is designed to limit the expenses of management and the dividends of shareholders, and to secure that the savings go to the holders of policies.
With regard to Clause 7, that clause extends to collecting societies the provisions of the Assurance Companies Act and compels them to make a deposit of £20,000, but the provision is limited by subsection (4) of the clause which exempts societies with a membership under 75,000 who continue to collect entirely within the old ten-mile limit.. Clause 11 amends the Assurance Companies Act of 1909, and makes industrial assurance a separate class of business for which a separate deposit is required. With regard to Clause 18, your Lordships will remember that the committee drew attention in its Report to the varying conditions on which different societies based their valuations. This clause is designed to secure greater uniformity in those valuations and also to secure compliance with certain essential conditions of sound valuation.
402
Turning to Clause 20, I would venture to draw your Lordships' special attention to subsection (3). This provision lays down that any person employed by a company who fills in a proposal form must be assumed to act as an agent of the company, and not as the agent of the person making the proposal for insurance. Paragraph (2) of subsection (3) also lays down limits within which the company may challenge the validity of the policy. Then I come to Clause 24, which deals with the lapse of policies. Under this clause, any policy which lapses after the time specified in that clause, will entitle the policy-holder either to a free paid-up policy or, in certain cases, to a surrender value. Clause 27 makes it impossible to deduct from a claim arrears on other policies. To give an illustration, if a sum is to be paid on the death of a policy-holder, it will not -be possible to deduct from that lump sum any of the arrears due on policies of other members of the family.
Next I turn to a clause which, as your Lordships remember, has been much discussed—namely, the clause dealing with war bowl policies. This clause gives effect to the recommendation made by Lord Parmoor's Committee, and enables the controlling authority to revise; the terms of war bond policies in cases where they may possibly have been considered inequitable. With regard to Clause 34, I would remind your Lordships that the Report of the Parmoor Committee contained a long discussion of the activities of a gentleman called the "special canvasser." The Committee, as your Lordships will remember, thought that many of those activities were undesirable, and this clause gives effect to their recommendation. In future, the action of a special canvasser will be impossible, and his functions will be abolished under this clause.
There is only one other clause with which I think I need trouble your Lordships, and that is Clause 42. It was not a matter which was dealt with by the Departmental Committee's Report. It deals with bond investment business. The clause is introduced to control certain classes of loan companies which, owing to the wording of the Act of 1909, are not subject to the provisions of that Act. The clause introduces no new principle, but merely amends and extends the Act of 1909.
I do not wish to detain your Lordship at this late hour with further discussion

403
of the Bill. I have dealt with the outstanding features of it. There are, of course, many other points of detail, all of which follow the line laid down by the Report of the Committee. I merely add, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that I should like again to express the hope that it may receive the consideration and criticism of those who are interested therein between now and next session, so that when the Government introduce the Bill again, they may be in possession of the view of those who are interested in this subject. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the Government and the noble Earl for bringing forward this Bill and giving us time for it next session. I have twice attempted to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the very grave revelations which were made by Lord Parmoor's Committee, to which evils this Bill is intended to put to an end. In framing the Bill, the Government, doubtless, have taken opinions from a very large number of quarters, but they could not ascertain. I am afraid, the opinions of the vast number of persons who have suffered total loss from the operations of this system of industrial assurance. The Committee stated that five million of these policies lapsed in one year, and it was maintained in evidence that this large number of lapses was really disadvantageous to the companies, but the Committee was able to prove that these enormous losses to the very poor people were compatible with large gains to a few great corporations. I believe in the case of some of these lapses the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, have been violated. In one case, of which I know, a father and three sons served in the Army, having taken out an industrial policy. When they came back after demobilisation, they offered their arrears, but those arrears were refused, and now, in these had times, those poor men cannot, of course, pay up all that they owe, and they have lost every farthing that was collected from them.
In a case which was given to me this afternoon, a man makes a signed statement to the following effect, and I think it is a very startling case—
404
"I, William Robinson, sincerely and solemnly declare that in the month of August, 1920, two men representing the Prudential Assurance Company, Ltd., called upon me and induced me to pay to them the sum of £1 as a first instalment, on what I was led to believe was the purchase of £100 of War Stock, which I was given to understand would be payable to me with interest thereon at the end of eight years; and which amount would by that time amount to between £130 and £140.
"As a consequence of what they told me I have paid nine instalments, or £9 altogether. I now find that I have been grossly misled, and that instead of War Stock I have an industrial assurance policy with conditions attached that I knew nothing about. Had I been told the truth I most certainly should not have paid any money to these men or to the company on such a contract, and I suggest it is more than time the public were protected against such fraudulent transactions, and I further consider that the £9 paid should be returned to me with interest thereon."
I have here the book of this man on which is stamped "5 per cent. War Stock £100," but there is not a word in it to indicate that it had anything to do with an insurance policy of any kind. There must be thousands of cases of this kind, showing how very necessary this Bill has become.
Clauses 23 and 24 deal with question of lapses, but they do not seem to have any retrospective effect, which I am inclined to think is necessary. The real remedy is to insist in most cases upon equitable surrender values. The case of the so-called War Bond policies is really peculiarly scandalous. These policies, which, as I have explained to the House, are grossly unfair to the holders, were eagerly pressed upon very ignorant people, who were led to believe that they were rendering patriotic service by accepting terms at which no business man would look. The noble Viscount, who then represented the Board of Trade, said that he knew nothing about this system, and believed that it had ceased to exist. But at that time it was in full operation, and about 700,000 of these policies have been already lapsed by the Prudential Company, which must have been disastrous to a large number of holders. I am glad to see that Clause 30 deals with this system, and gives power to the Inspector-General to remedy grievances, though it is not retrospective. I am inclined to hope that it will be made retrospective. One of the most important clauses is Clause 21, which requires that a prescribed form of policy shall be used. It will require a little amendment to make it effective, but it gives considerable means of remedying some of the worst evils of this system.

405
The Report of Lord Parmoor's Committee really made some action quite inevitable, because the system it described could not possibly be allowed to continue much longer in such a country as ours. It has been to me a source of pained surprise that so little was done to give publicity to the revelations in that important Report, or proclaim the cruel hardships which the system is causing on a large scale. The newspapers have hardly touched the question at all. The Labour Party, which affects to champion the grievances of the manual workers, has not found time to deal with their greatest grievance. In their multifarious conferences and discussions, which range over many questions, this burning question has never been brought to the front. It will rest with your Lordships' House, which has always shown sympathy with the working classes, to amend this Bill, if necessary, so as to prevent for ever the profitable exploitation of the meritorious thrift of poor people. I welcome the Bill as a real attempt to put a stop to a national scandal, and I earnestly hope that the Government, when there has been time to consider all its provisions, will be willing to accept any Amendments which can be shown to be needed to render it permanently and completely effective.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, as one who has taken part in previous debates and who holds the same view as Lord Sydenham, I wish to say a few words with regard to this Bill. It is absolutely essential that a measure of this kind should be passed into law, in the interests of policy holders and also of insurance companies. The course which has been adopted is, I very convenient. I have compared most carefully the Bill with the Report and I find that the suggestions, the moderate suggestions, made by the Committee have been carried out. Small Amendments may be required, but, on the whole, the Bill is well thought out, carefully constructed, and carries into effect the main suggestions of the Committee.
On Question, Bill read. 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
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 hunched and 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 day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, any legal proceedings are pending in England and Wales to which the 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 be, 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.

(d) This repeal shall not prejudice the powers of the Minister for dealing with injurious weeds under section four, subsection (10) of the Agriculture Act, 1920.

LORD CLINTON: Before the noble Earl moves his Amendment to Clause 1 there is a question I desire to put to him, of which I have given him private notice, with regard to proviso (a). This proviso states:
"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—"
The question is raised mainly by Scottish agriculturists, and it is as to whether this proviso is a sufficient safeguard for Section 3 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, which deals with changes of tenancy and lays down the method of payment of the minimum prices. Section (3) of the Corn Production

407
Act lays down that the tenant who is in occupation of the farm on September 1 is deemed to be the occupier who is entitled to receive payment under the Act. It is a question of importance, particularly in Scotland, because the man in possession on September 1 is not the man who laid down the crop. Section 3 lays down, in a manner clear to the legal mind but not to the mind of the agriculturist, how these payments are to be made, and the question is whether proviso (a) in Clause 1 of this Bill is a sufficient safeguard against the provisions of the Corn Production Act, 1917.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I think I had better make a short statement in reply as to the effect of the clause. The Acts of 1917 and 1920 enable the person who is the occupier on September 1 to make a claim for the guarantee and the repeal does not take effect until October 1. It is clear that by the date of the repeal the claim will have accrued. Under the Interpretation Act, 1889, such right is preserved, notwithstanding the repeal. The power to take any proceedings in respect of a claim is further dealt with in paragraph (a) of Clause 1. I am advised that there is no doubt as to the rights of claim being preserved, and that, at any rate, is the view upon which the Government is prepared to act. With regard to the point raised by my noble friend, as to whether the outgoing tenant's claim to compensation for a 1921 crop will be effected by the repeal, this right will have accrued before the repeal, and will not be affected by the repeal, but will be ascertained in accordance with Section 3, (1), (b), of the Corn Production Act, 1917.
LORD CLINTON: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his reply. One can only wish that it were rather more clearly stated in the language of this Bill.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after paragraph (b), to insert the following new paragraph—
(c)"All powers with respect to the destruction of injurious weeds shall continue to be exercise-able as if such of the provisions of the Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920, as are specified in the Schedule of this Act, had not been repealed but were continued in force as set out with the necessary modifications in the said Schedule; and "
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment. I may remind your Lordships that I promised to look into this matter and to consider the possibility of preserving the existing powers of dealing with injurious weeds under Section 4, subsection (10), of the Agriculture Act, 1920. I then indicated that this involved not only the section referred to but a considerable number of other provisions of the Act which is now being repealed. I have had to bear in mind that any provision on this subject, in order that it may be within the scope of the Bill, must take the form of modified exception from the repeal proposed by the Bill. I also think it is essential, if there is not to be great confusion as to the provisions that are to be made, that all these provisions should be set out, in full, and I have done this in a, schedule which appears later on the paper. Though the Government are prepared to accept this limited legislation as to the destruction of injurious weeds, it must be understood that the Ministry cannot pledge themselves to defray the expense of any considerable organisation in the various counties to deal with the matter. I think, however, it is quite possible that some useful work in this direction might be accomplished without any considerable expense.
That is how the case stands. Your Lordships will remember that, at the time when this Amendment was inserted, I stated that the Government wished to deal with this matter in a separate Bill, and to introduce it next session. But there seemed to be a general opinion in your Lordships' House that it should be placed in this Bill. I hear, however, from different persons whom I have consulted: since, that there is a strong opinion that I ought to have taken a Division on that occasion, and that there are a great number-of your Lordships who think that this is mixing matters up, and that it will involve a certain amount of expense and control' of cultivation. In fulfilment of my promise I have had Amendments prepared, and shall move them; but if your Lordships consider that it is a mistake to deal with the question in this manner, and that it would be better to deal with it in a Bill another year, you are perfectly able, of course, to take a Division on the question whether these words shall be inserted. If that were done, I must make it clear that there must be an honourable understanding that Lord Dynevor's Amend-

409
ment, which I accepted, could not remain in the Bill, because, we do not think that Amendment is sufficient for dealing with the question, or quite in order.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I, for my part, welcome the noble Earl's Amendment, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that it does riot go nearly so far in this respect—
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: You have an Amendment on that subject later on, have you not?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I want, if I may, to explain it. I shall only take two minutes, and then I shall not give any trouble hereafter. I should like to point out that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, went further, because it enabled the Minister of Agriculture to schedule from time to time lists of injurious weeds, by Order which should lie on the Table of both Houses. As it is, this Amendment anticipates a schedule which contains weeds of five descriptions, only. There are two varieties of thistle, two of dock, and the large variety of groundsel which is generally known as ragwort.
I should like to point out that, although in certain parts of the country these weeds undoubtedly are seriously troublesome, there are other parts of the country where other weeds are more serious pests, and, in order to meet local difficulties, they would undoubtedly have to be scheduled eventually amongst injurious weeds. I may draw very special attention to the sow thistle, or sonchus. It is not a true thistle, but it is possibly a more serious pest in the west of England than any other weed. There are also the poppy, which is a very serious pest in the east of England, the coltsfoot and the common groundsel. All these are wind-sown weeds, which may be carried from the land of a careless farmer to the land of a good husbandman. I should like to urge that the Ministry of Agriculture, as is contemplated by Lord Dynevor's Amendment, should be given the power from time to time to schedule those weeds which are represented to be the most serious pests in any district in the country. It is true that thistles and docks
410
are serious weeds in most parts of the country, but when you conic to a weed like ragwort, although in Scotland it has become a very serious pest, it is not so serious in many parts of England.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I was responsible for the words in the Bill which my noble friend wishes to be substituted for other words. The noble Earl does not think that my words would quite meet the case. I am not quite sure that they would not have done so, but I notice that the noble Earl is later on going to move a most Herculean schedule. I do not wish to deprive him of the pleasure of moving that schedule, and I therefore agree to his proposal.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I am one of those who think that it is a great pity that this matter has been put into the Bill. I think several of us believed that my noble friend opposite intended to divide the House on it. He did not seem to think, however, that he would obtain sufficient support. From the two speakers whom we have heard, I gather that this goes considerably further than was originally intended. My noble friend opposite said that this would involve a large number of officials going all over the country. Primarily, as I understand this Bill, it is intended to repeal the control of agriculture, whereas the Amendment proposed seems to me to continue the control. Again, if it is going to be at all effective, it means a very large number of officials. I think your Lordships will agree that all these weeds are most undesirable, but it is a very great pity that this has been introduced in the Bill.
LORD ABINGER: My Lords, I rather thought, when this Amendment was before the Committee, that it was one which was absolutely forced upon the Government without very much consideration. Of course, I am merely a young member of this House, but I have seen certain noble Lords opposite perpetually criticising the Government, and they very often do so on the score of expenditure. The whole reason why this Bill is before the House at all, or is under amendment, is entirely a question of expense. The Government, as I understand it, entered into a contract with the farmers, the condition precedent of which was that the Government were to pay certain guarantees, and in return for

411
that the farmer was condemned to put up with various controls, inspections and all sorts of delightful amusements, which may have pleased noble Lords opposite. Time went on and the Government found they could not fulfil their contract, and so they rescinded it. It is done in many businesses all over the world, and by agreement between both parties.
Then, when they come to rescind their contract, up jump certain noble Lords, who say: "No, we must not have this or that, and this system of control ought to be re-inserted," and they re-insert it in the shape of certain subsections. For instance, when the question of weeds cropped up, the noble Earl (the Earl of Ancaster), who replied on the Amendment, said that if they were to look after weeds properly it would entail a system of motor cars and inspectors, and he really could not agree to it. Up jumped one noble Lord—Lord Hastings, I think—and said he had a perfect horror of such things. Then Lord Selborne rose and said: "Oh, well, we want to avoid this, and will do so by having county inspectors, instead of having inspectors sent down by the Board of Agriculture." In the case of county inspectors, it is the ratepayer who has to pay. I am connected with certain ratepayers' associations, and I am certain that we shall strongly object to the large extra expense, if there is to be county action in this form. It is to be remembered that the public were never asked whether they wanted these county committees or not. They were foisted on the county councils, and the public had never had an opportunity of expressing any opinion. The county councils do not retire annually, and therefore the public cannot express an opinion for a number of years, but if the ratepayers find that increasing expense is put upon them, by re-creating control, they will do their best to change the county councils whenever they get an opportunity.
In the meantime, I suggest that a Division should be taken on this matter. I grant that weeds are undesirable, but cannot they be dealt with by the parish councils? Lord Bledisloe smiles. I do not know the part of the world in which he lives, but, so far as my part of the country is concerned, on one parish council there is a Judge of the High Court, on another we have the squire, who is a member of a family which has resided there since the time of Henry VIII,
412
and on two others there are Peers, one being a noble Lord who usually sits opposite, and I am upon another. We get on perfectly well with the Labour members, and we shall strongly object to great expense being foisted upon the county in the shape of inspectors with motor-cars, coming fifty or sixty miles. Each inspector will no doubt be accompanied by two men, because one witness alone is not sufficient evidence. They will all be entitled to their expenses, and therefore, for looking at a few weeds, the cost for a first inspection will be about £40, and for a second inspection another £40. Then they will begin to institute proceedings, and more expense will follow, whereas if the matter be left to the parish it will be done without any expense at all, and the parish council is quite a capable body for looking after it. I shall therefore support the noble Duke.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has quoted me, but he has quoted me incorrectly. I never said that county councils would do the work through inspectors, but through the agricultural members of the county councils, who, in their own districts, would know of the flagrant cases which had to be dealt with. If the duty is entrusted to the agricultural committees of the county councils, a very great reform will be effected at very small expense. It is very seldom that I differ on anything from the noble Duke, who first of all opposed this proposal. I ask your Lordships to consider what the state of affairs really is at the present moment. This is the only civilised country in the world in which a slovenly farmer may flood his neighbour's land with every kind of hideous weed, the seed of which is wind-borne. There is not only the slovenly farmer, but there are the railway embankments, of which perhaps the noble Duke knows something, and the wide borders of the roads, for which the local authorities are responsible. At the present moment, you may have a first-rate farm on one side of the hedge, and, on the other, yards and yards of thistles on land belonging to the local authority. And this is the only country in the world in which such a state of things could exist. After all, because some of your Lordships object to control in one form, it is not necessary that you should object to control in another form. You do not object to control which prevents your neighbour from infecting you with some horrible disease, and why

413
should you object to control which will prevent the slovenly farmer, or the careless railway company, from flooding your land with weeds?
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl is correct. I do not see where the great expense comes in. It is very well known in the district where the slovenly farmers are, and all you have to do is to write to the authority and they send -down, and then I believe the expense of pulling up the noxious weeds falls upon the slovenly farmer himself.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, on the delinquent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out"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," and to insert"and under any other enactment, unless and until His Majesty by Order in Council directs that such powers and duties shall be exercised by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which direction it shall be lawful for His Majesty."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to call your attention to subsection (c) of Clause 1, which provides that—
" 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."
I think your Lordships will agree that this is giving too much power to the Board of Agriculture. In fact, it is making it into a bureaucracy of a very strong kind. It was criticised very seriously in another place, and I put down an Amendment for the Committee stage, but I took an opportunity which I had of seeing the Secretary for Scotland, and therefore I did not move the Amendment. The Secretary for Scotland and his officials and I have met, and
414
we came to agreed words, which I now propose to move. I should like to ask my noble friend who speaks for Scotland in your Lordships' House to convey our appreciation to the Secretary of Scotland for having met us in the way he has done.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("1920") to ("to") in line 19, and insert the said words.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STANMORE: The Government are prepared to accept the Amendment in its present form, and I will convey to my right hon. friend the message of thanks from the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to leave out the words"thereafter have power to constitute an agricultural committee for that area"at the end of paragraph (c), and to insert"continue to have power to constitute such bodies: Provided that before any Order in Council is made under this section a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which such House is sitting, and unless both Houses by resolution approve of such draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of a new draft Order."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out from (" shall ") to end of paragraph (c) and insert the said words.— (Lord,Saltoun.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 22 to 25, leave out paragraph (d). —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4.
Establishment of voluntary joint councils of employers and workmen in agriculture.
4. Whereas it is expedient that local joint conciliation committees representative of persons (whether owners or occupiers of agricultural land) 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 of labour: Now, therefore—
(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as respects England and Wales, and the Board of

415
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 of such committees.
(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, be 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 of the organisation representing employers or workmen by whom the vacating member was nominated.
(3) Any joint conciliation committee winch 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, if the committees so desire, submit the agreement to the Minister for confirmation, and the Minister may confirm the 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,
(4) 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, provided that wages shall not be recoverable under this subsection unless proceedings for such recovery shall have been commenced before the expiration of three months after the date when the wages became due.
(5) 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 art application by either an employer or a workman made for such a certificate, the committee or sub-committee 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;

416
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: 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 procedings for the recovery thereof.
(6) A joint conciliation committee may appoint an independent person to act as chairman without the power to vote.
(7) The representatives of employers and workmen on a joint conciliation committee shall, respectively, have one collective vote on any question.
(8) This section, except subsection (1) thereof, shall not apply to Scotland.
(9) 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 for market gardens or nursery grounds, but not woodland, 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 BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "have power to". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would make it incumbent on the Minister of Agriculture to take some steps in every area in the country in order to secure the voluntary formation of conciliation committees. I move the Amendment mainly with the object of eliciting from the Parliamentary Secretary some assurance that the Minister does, in fact, intend to take these steps in every part of the country because, if he does not do so, it is quite apparent that there might be very serious economic effects, say in two contiguous counties where the conditions are absolutely the same, but where, in consequence of a conciliation committee being formed in one of them, the wage might be substantially higher than in the adjoining area where there was no conciliation committee, and where the matter was left to private contract between employer and employed. If the noble Earl gives such an assurance I shall not press my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("have power to").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said I do not think it necessary to argue this Amendment. The Minister does intend to take whatever steps he thinks best adapted to get conciliation committees established, and, with that object in view, he has already bad a meeting of the secretaries of the existing district wages boards in order to consult with them and in order to get these conciliation committees started all over the country. He has made a special point that it is most important that the interim, conciliation committees, which are set up later in the Bill, should meet the very moment this Bill passes, and consider the question.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 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: My Lords, the scheme of this Bill is to encourage in every county the setting up of voluntary conciliation committees to deal with questions of wages and tours. There is no direction in respect of the setting up of these committees, except that they are to be representative of the employers and the employed. The Ministry does not necessarily come into the matter at all, except in two ways. In the first place, the general duty is imposed upon the Minister to do what he can to assist in the formation of these committees. When once they are formed he has nothing to do with their working, but if they desire that the force of law should be given to their unanimous agreement, then the Minister is again brought in.
The way this will work is that, in order to have the force of law behind its decisions, a Committee formed in any county for any area must eventually obtain the recognition of the Minister. I ask the House to consider what is going to happen. Rival committees may be set up in different counties.
418
One group of employers and one group of workmen may propose a committee; another group of employers and another group of workmen may propose another committee. Even where there is not an actual rivalry for the committee in one given area, it may very easily happen that two committees are formed, each claiming a part of the same area. The adjustment of these committees, both in respect of their composition and of the area which they will occupy, will be a very difficult matter.
How is the Minister going to decide which committees ought to be recognised, how many are required for a given county, and what area.each committee in the county should occupy? Is he going to decide that matter alone, in Whitehall? Surely not Surely he will seek local advice. He will take means to inquire whether those who have approached him are really representative of the classes they pretend to represent, and also whether the general opinion of employers and employed in the county is that this is the best committee for the purpose. The proper authority for him to consult is the agricultural committee of the county council. That is a statutory authority; in part it is thoroughly representative, by its constitution, of all agricultural interests within the county; and in large part it is nominated by the Minister himself, and therefore he ought to have great confidence in it. For that reason, I hold that, in order to obviate mistakes, to make sure that the right committees are appointed for the right areas in every county, the Minister ought, as a matter of constitutional practice, to consult the agricultural committee of the county council.
If that had been all that I had in my mind I should have been content with the word "consultation," but I have put down the word "concurrence" on Report, as I put it down in Committee, for a reason which I want quite frankly to state to your Lordships. If I knew that the present Minister for Agriculture was going to occupy his place permanently I should be quite satisfied with "consultation." But I have no such assurance. Who is going to occupy that honourable office in the future? I can imagine, in the time of a Labour Ministry, a Labour Minister of Agriculture who, using the powers conferred upon him by this Bill as it stands at present, would recognise for a county

419
or for a part of a county a conciliation committee which was very agreeable to his Party, but which was in no sense truly representative of the employers of the county. I can imagine, in fact, such a Minister recognising as the conciliation committee a body which had no real title to that office.
But when once that has been recognised by the Minister, look what follows. This body, which might be composed very much to the satisfaction of the Labour Party, but not to the satisfaction of the representatives of the employers, would then be able to fix rates of wages and hours, and the Ministry could give statutory effect to their recommendation, and a legal rate of wages would be forced on that county, or on part of it, by a body whose title to represent the employers at any rate was repudiated by the people in the county. That is the reason why I suggest that it is a reasonable and wise safeguard to put into this Bill words to the effect that before any such committee is recognised the Minister shall obtain the concurrence of the agricultural committee of the county council.
The other evening my noble friend, Lord Emmott, objected that delay might ensue. I do not think that is likely to occur. As I have already said, the members of the agricultural committee are largely the nominees of the Minister himself. They will be extremely anxious to see that proper bodies are instituted within their county, and I do not think that any friction or delay, which can reasonably be avoided, is likely to ensue. Even if I thought there would be a little delay, I should submit respectfully to your Lordships that the evil is less than that which is possible under the Bill as drafted now—a future Minister recognising as a conciliation committee a body having no real title to that honourable office.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, after ("power") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I have listened with much interest to the arguments which the noble Lord brought forward in support of his Amendment, which he also moved during the Committee stage. I am afraid I can only repeat to a large extent what I said on that occasion and state, first of all, that the Ministry are unable to take the same view as he does
420
and that they do not think the Amendment is a desirable one. There seems to be still a certain amount of confusion about the idea that somebody ought to have power to set up the conciliation committee. That is not the case. The conciliation committees are voluntary bodies and will practically create themselves. The only bodies that are being created, and are not actually voluntary, are those we are setting up as interim beginning bodies, if I may call them—namely, the old wages boards without the appointed members. The Ministry is taking steps, as I said in regard to a previous Amendment, to get all these temporary conciliation committees to work at once, and it will be for the members of those committees to decide upon the areas and to decide as they see fit whether a county shall or shall not be split up.
After all, it is a question of bargaining between two bodies of people—the employers and the employed. It is no more the business of a county council, or the agricultural committee of a county council, to dictate to a conciliation committee how it is to be constituted and the area over which its ukase is to run than for a county borough to interfere with a body set up by builders and bricklayers to settle questions of hours of work and wages in the building trade. What is the object of dragging in the agricultural committee to deal with questions which it is not in the least for them to decide? It is a question for the employers and employed to decide. It is not a question for a county council, not is it a question for the Minister, and the Minister is not going to decide it. The Minister is setting up these interim conciliation committees, and after they are set up, the question will be one for the employers and employed, and for them alone.
A further argument which I think ought to carry some weight is this. The first question I should like to ask is: Are the agricultural committees of county councils demanding that they shall be called upon to perform this duty? I do not believe that one of them is; and I know that two county councils in my immediate locality have passed resolutions to the effect that the agricultural committee should be abolished altogether, because they think it is useless and a waste of money. I mention that only to show that some county councils apparently are not so very anxious about their agricultural committees, and do not want this work thrust upon them.

421
The noble Earl made it a great point that Labour is represented on these agricultural committees. To what extent? I do not know what may be the case in Hampshire, but I think it will be found that on most agricultural committees of county councils there are generally about two Labour members appointed; they are not very numerous. Is it to be supposed that a large body of men belonging to the Agricultural Workers' Union, or to some other large union of agricultural workers, will consent to be dictated to by a committee which is altogether unrepresentative of Labour except for two appointed members, as to the constitution of areas and other matters connected with the setting up and working of these conciliation committees? I do not know that I can offer further objections. I made a speech on this subject on the Committee stage, and I most earnestly ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment, because I feel perfectly certain it would not tend to the harmonious working of the Bill or add to the efficiency or success of the conciliation committees in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not altogether follow the noble Earl opposite when he says that the Minister would have nothing to do with the formation of these conciliation committees. I think the noble Earl can scarcely have remembered the terms of the Bill when he said that, because the Minister is to "take such steps—"
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Quite so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Taking steps mast have, some meaning. What is he going to do?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: He is taking steps now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure he is. He is also to take steps at the end of two years, because he is to take steps for the formation of these voluntary bodies after the interim period. All that is covered by the words of the clause. What steps is he going to take?
THE EARL of ANGASTER: He will consult the organised bodies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly he will consult the organised bodies.
422
He will I expect, use a great; deal of influence, and he will be right to do so under the terms of the Bill as we are passing it. He will probably make suggestions. Otherwise, I do not understand why he is imported at all. Why need we bother to enact that the Minister is to take steps unless they are to be effective steps? It is not to be merely the summoning of a number of people to consult together; or is that all that is going to be done? I venture to say that when this Bill becomes an Act and this Clause comes to be worked, there will be a regular procedure under which the Minister will communicate with various people. He will probably have representatives who will go down into the counties, visit the various organisations which are concerned, and try to produce conciliation committees. We all know what is the result of inspectors coming down from central bodies. They acquire authority and power; they are very powerful people. Those of us who work on county councils have seen them in action, and have heard them declare ex cathedra what the Minister in London will consent to and what he will not consent to, and they exercise an influence which is very effective.
If I may say so, I think my noble friend altogether underrates the power he is putting into the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture under these words. I am sure that minimises he it. But when the provision comes to be worked, I am sure he will find that the Minister will use a very great deal of influence, and very necessary influence, that somebody should use if the whole machinery of this Bill is not to be ineffective and chaotic. What does my noble friend who moved this Amendment say? He says, it is not safe after our experience of the way central authorities work—after our experience of this growing bureaucracy which we resent—to leave this in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture alone, having regard to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture in the future—in the very near future, if I am to judge from the aspect of the political situation of the moment—may be a totally different person from my right hon. friend who is now so worthily presiding at this Office. Then, we ask, what is the obvious thing? The reply is, to substitute for the full authority of the Minister the influence of the agricultural committee of the county council. They are the people who represent agriculture in the county. My

423
noble friend evidently dislikes the agricultural committees. All I can say is, that in my county we have a first-rate agricultural committee, of which we are very proud. It has done an immense amount of good.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: In the County of Durham I believe they are all Labour members.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not despise Labour members quite in the way members of the Government do. I am speaking not of the County of Durham, to which I have not the honour to belong, but of the County of Hertfordshire, to which I have the honour to belong, and I say that these agricultural committees have in many respects done a great deal of good, and they do represent the local feeling. They will prevent this bureaucratic influence from the centre acting beyond measure, and going in wrong directions. Whatever power is conferred upon the Minister by this clause—and, although the words are carefully chosen, it is considerable power—that power will be much more safely exercised after consultation with, and, if necessary, the concurrence of, the agricultural committee, than if the Minister were left to act alone.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess who has just sat down hit the right nail on the head, although he did not attack it in precisely the way that I should have done myself. I am not specially anxious to see the county agricultural committees included in this business. But I am prepared to support the suggestion of my noble friend, Lord Selborne, that they should be included, for the reasons given by the noble Marquess who has just spoken. If subsection (1) could be omitted altogether, and if the Minister was not introduced into the picture at all until the committees have been formed and entrusted with the power shown in the latter part of subsection (3), I should be quite content, and should not attempt to introduce the agricultural committees. But I think that they will in most cases—certainly in the agricultural counties—act as a necessary corrective to the over-centralisation which appears also to be encouraged in this subsection (1).
When it is said that the Minister is to take steps to secure the voluntary formation of committees, I suspect, as the noble
424
Marquess does, that something more is likely to be involved than mere encouragement. Voluntary committees can be formed for the agricultural business, as they can be formed for other business, without the direct interference of the public Departments, and if, as I indicated in my speech on the Second Reading, the counties could be left entirely alone to form their committees in their own way, I think that would be the best course. Some would form them better than others, and more promptly than others, but I should prefer them to the centralisation which seems to me to be necessarily involved in the proposals of the Bill as they stand. Therefore, as a kind of corrective to this over-centralisation, I should be prepared to support Lord Selborne's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I think Lord Crewe concedes that somebody must take the initiative, and probably it is wise that the Ministry of Agriculture, which is in permanent session, so to speak, with its own skilled staff, should bear that responsibility. I do not know if Lord Crewe meant to sugggest that the initiative should rest with the county councils.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No. Perhaps I might explain, if I did not make myself clear. As proposed by the Bill, persons who are members of the district committee are to remain for two years, or until a committee is formed. I should assume that, in the great majority of counties, within those two years committees would be formed. The committees no doubt, in the first instance, will be very largely composed, as I think His Majesty's Government admit, of the same persons who now form the district wages board, and I should be prepared to leave that to the counties.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will not press that too far. It is clear that someone must take the initial responsibility. There must be some experienced person, or body, to bring the parties together, and to arrange the hundred and one details which will arise about, for instance, overlapping borders, the amalgamation of different parts of counties, the water-sheds, and many other things. These things will never be done if left to voluntary bodies. There are lots of people who would like to drop these things altogether, and would do so unless there is somebody

425
to take the steps laid down in line 22. You may be sure unless what the Bill proposes is done, that there will be parts of the country in which what is required will not be done at all. Lord Selborne says that he is quite prepared to concede this if it were only during the tenure of the present Minister of Agriculture, whom he believes to be impartial, and therefore to be trusted in this matter. I agree that the Minister may change, and Lord Selborne is apprehensive about the future. But precisely the same thing applies to the county committees. They may change; and, on the whole, if I were to be attacked, I would rather be attacked by an unsympathetic Minister than by an unsympathetic agricultural committee.
It is no good our pretending that these county agricultural committees are representative of the artisan population in agriculture. They are not. I do not suppose that three per cent.—not five per cent. certainly—in the counties with which I am acquainted are agricultural labourers, and I would remind your Lordships that agricultural labourers are a considerable element in the question of wages. Moreover, I have heard debate after debate in this House, in which your Lordships have protested against this accumulation of work upon the shoulders of the county authority. My noble friend behind me has quoted cases in which county councils are imploring that these committees shall be liquidated. The county councils do not want to be mixed up in questions of wages and matters of jurisdiction. Those things are alien to their work and traditions, and I am sure that the long-sighted persons among county councillors will realise that once they become involved in these things, and once these questions are brought into the work of county government, the great and well-deserving influence of the county councils will be very much prejudiced. From the point of view of the councils alone, I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. I do not think it is right that committees of this kind should be asked to exercise a veto upon the steps taken by the Government, which are voluntary steps. I think we shall introduce confusion, we shall divide responsibility, and as far as I can see, we shall conciliate neither party of the agricultural world.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am bound to say that my great fear in this connection is that the Ministry may now or
426
hereafter fall altogether too much under the domination of various organised bodies and trade unions, it may be of farmers on the one side or workers on the other. The noble Earl opposite has already told us that the Minister is not going to act directly on his own judgment or discretion; in fact, I believe he has already commenced to take into consultation with him the representatives of these various sectional organisations.
I should like to ask the noble Earl who has just spoken what was the object of his own Government, less than two years ago, setting up all over the country county agricultural committees. They were described at the time as being the agents of the Government for the purpose of agricultural administration in their respective areas, though, in fact, they are apparently now not deemed to be even of an agricultural complexion and they are not deemed competent to give advice upon an agricultural matter such as this. It may or may not be wise to insist upon the concurrence of these bodies, but I think there would be a great deal of advantage in taking them into consultation, and for the reason that there is no other body which can so well advise the Minister as to what shall be the separate areas for which these new bodies may be established. I may remind your Lordships that it is not proposed to continue in every case the areas, and the wage committees that cover those areas, which have existed in the past. It is proposed to have much smaller areas in many cases, and therefore presumably to apportion the county into various smaller areas and set up separate committees to cover those areas. Surely the two trade unions are not the best people to consult as to the apportionment of the county for purely agricultural purposes. I should have thought that a county agricultural committee was the body best equipped for that purpose, and I venture to submit if the noble Lord is not prepared to accept the word "concurrence" he might, in order to oil the wheels, agree that the county committee shall at any rate be taken into consultation, and if he is prepared to do that I should urge my noble friend, Lord Selborne, that he should substitute that for the word "concurrence" in order that we may come to an amicable arrangement in this matter.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I sincerely hope that this Amendment

427
will not be carried. I cannot see what on earth the county council has to do with this matter. What will happen will be this. The great question in county council elections will be as to who shall get a majority to recommend conciliation boards. Leave us alone. This proposal of Lord Selborne's is to give the county councils a certain power of recommendation. I have sat on a county council for a good many years, though I do not sit on one now, and I may say that they have plenty to do already. For heaven's sake do not put this upon them. It will only lead to their fighting like Kilkenny cats as to who shall apply it. You will not get one step further. Leave these conciliation committees to be formed by the people themselves. If you let them work out their own salvation they will work a great deal better than you think, and they will entirely upset the calculations of the people who are hoping that it will turn out a failure.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I hope you will grant me your indulgence. This is a matter in which I have been personally interested because I have been a member of the wages committee of Devonshire, and also a member of the agricultural committee. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be defeated, because, in the first place, it will press very hardly on the agricultural labourer. I have in my hand a list of the members of the agricultural committee of which I am a member, which shows that twenty-eight are nominated by the county council, two are agricultural labourers, two are ladies, and there are sixteen additional members. Only two out of forty-eight are agricultural labourers, and represent the interests of the agricultural labouring class. If this Amendment is carried, therefore, it will press very hardly on the agricultural labourers of a big agricultural county like Devonshire.
In the second place, the agricultural committee only meets periodically. We had a meeting on May 19; our next meeting is on September 15; we have another meeting on November 17; and the meeting after that is on February 16, next year. If you confer this duty on agricultural committees it seems to me there must be necessarily a considerable delay. In addition to that the work of the agricultural committees has been split up into several sub-committees, but in no case
428
has anyone been appointed to the agricultural committee with the understanding that he would be called upon to discharge so important a duty as the duty which the noble Earl would confer upon hint. I must confess I sincerely hope the Government will stand firm in this matter, because if they do not it will not only make the working of their measure extremely difficult but it will certainly not be of any advantage to the agricultural community.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I very much regret I am not able to support my noble friend, Lord Selborne. I think he is aware that on this question I did not support hint in Committee. I sincerely hope your Lordships will not let this Amendment pass, because it will undermine the whole principle of the conciliation committees and the freedom and latitude which is given them by the Bill which I am most anxious to retain.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, one reason given for the Amendment is the difficulty as to what would happen under the Bill if the Labour Party came into power. I am not qualified to speak for Labour, but I fancy if a Labour Party did come into power the first thing they would do would be to set up an agricultural wages board, and in that I think they would have the sympathy of a very large and influential section of the population.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "adapted for sowing" and insert ("calculated to secure"). The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("adapted for sowing") and insert ("calculated to secure").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("whom") and insert ("which").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "An organisation by which any person who is a member of a district wages committee at the date of passing of this Act was nominated as such may at any time before the first day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, appoint another person to act in the place of that person as a member of the joint conciliation committee."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which makes it quite clear that, an organisation can only change its representation on the conciliation committee once. I promised to make that point clear. I do not think that it is worth going into it at any great length. The point is that we thought it was only fair to these different organisations that they should have the power in the first instance of changing their umbers. Under the old wages board they naturally appointed members who were fighters, because they had to fight and prove their case before the appointed members, and naturally they wanted people who were good advocates to put their case, whether they were employers or employed. It may be considered by these different organisations that under the conciliation committees it would be more advisable to have people of less combative, temperament and more inclined for conciliation. The effect of this Amendment will be to enable these organisations, if thought fit, to change their members once, but not after that. It was argued by many noble Lords that as the Bill stood it would be possible for these organisations, for all time, to turn out a representative who voted against their opinions. I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, as I was responsible for moving out the obnoxious subsection may I say that I see no objection to the present modification. As the district wages committees have been in existence for some time it will be necessary to allow them to make these alterations if they so desire.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3), after "rate of wages," to insert"and
430
the date from and the period for which it shall operate." The noble Lord said: In the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill the date from and the period during which the wage shall operate are left in one case to the discretion of the district committee and in the other to the discretion of the Minister. I think that in both cases it should rest with the local committee. I do not desire to press the noble Earl to alter his Amendment if he can show us some good reason why the date from which the wage shall operate should be a matter for the discretion of the Minister, whereas the period is to be a matter for the discretion of the local committee. I will, however, not press the Amendment.
Amendment, moved—
Page 3, line 40, after ("wages") insert ("and the date from and the pert el for which it shall operate").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved in subsection (3), before "may if the committees so desire," to insert "and has agreed as to the period, whether a specified period or a period terminable by notice, during which the rate is to operate." The noble Earl said: This Amendment; and the one which follows it, are really drafting and intended to carry out what was meant by the clause and apparently desired by your Lordships. The Minister has no power to determine the period for which the rate is to operate; this must be a matter for the committee to agree upon. He must, however, be in a position, when advertising the rate, to name some prospective date from which it will become legally enforceable, so that employers may have proper notice of their obligations.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("committees so desire") and insert ("committee so desires")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, leave out from ("cause") to ("operate") in line 5, and insert ("particulars of the agreed rate, and the agreed period and the date (being such date subsequent to the date of the advertisement as the Minister may determine) from which the rate is to").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, at end insert ("or in respect of a period exceeding six weeks").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, perhaps this will be a convenient moment for me to put a question to the noble Earl as to what is included in the term "wages"; whether anything more is meant than a money wage. Whether legally or not, the wages hoards did deal with something else. They dealt with cottage rents, and I want to be clear whether any power is given under this Bill to these committees to deal with the matter of cottage rents. There is no mention of it in the Bill. What are mentioned are wages and hours, and I want to be clear as to whether these conciliation committees are to have legal power to deal with cottage rents.
It is a subject on which I feel more strongly than on almost anything else. Anything more anomalous than the present position of farm cottage rents I cannot conceive. If there happens to be a cottage attached to a farm the fortunate possessor gets it at an uneconomic rent, and his fellow workman, who is not so fortunate, has to get a cottage somewhere else, in a quarter where the population is thick, and pay a rent sometimes twice, or three times, or perhaps four times, as much as his fellow workman. The whole thing is absolutely anomalous, and I hope there is nothing in this Bill which will permit these conciliation committees to interfere between employer and employed as to what is a fair rent for the farm cottage.
THE EARL of ANCASTER: The conciliation committees will have power to take into consideration cottage rents in dealing with the subject of wages. When their two representatives meet, the employers and employed, they will decide on the rate of wages, and where a cottage is included in the rate they will settle what
432
extra or less wages shall be paid in consequence. It will be. a matter for the conciliation committee to decide.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, this is really an important matter. I assume that the conciliation committees will take over all the duties that the agricultural wages boards have undertaken in regard to privileges, such as, for instance, the rent of a cottage valued at 3s. per week as a substitute for a cash wage. I presume that potato grounds and other privileges which are recognised will continue under the conciliation committees. I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I ask him to make that point quite clear.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: These conciliation committees will be composed of farmers and workmen who will know something, probably a good deal, about the conditions of labour in their part of the country, and I think it is certain that when they come to make any rate of wages they will have under consideration the whole customs and habits of the district. It will be for the two parties to come to an agreement. If they do not these may be a strike or lock-out, but it is for the conciliation committees to agree upon all these matters. The noble Earl, Lord Grey, I think, moved an Amendment the other night to leave out certain Northern counties, where it was the custom—I am giving this only as an instance—to hire a man for some months, or perhaps a year at a time. That will be taken into consideration by the conciliation committee. They would have to draw up a rate of wages, and if it were the custom to give a man meal or a free cottage or something of that kind, that would be taken into consideration by the farmers and labourers when they met. I do not think I can explain the matter further than that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, surely there is one difficulty to which the noble Earl has not alluded. Nobody is better aware than he that the people who will be representing the employers on the conciliation boards will not, as a rule, be the people to whom the cottages belong, or who are in any way concerned with their rents. It is understood that the representatives of employers and labourers on the conciliation committees will be, in the main, and in some cases, I imagine, solely, tenant farmers. On the other hand,

433
as the noble Earl is very well aware, on a great many estates the tenant farmers have nothing whatever to do with cottages, and that, appears to me to create an application which the noble Earl's reply does not quite cover.
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, I hesitate to offer a legal opinion on a Bill which it is my business to endeavour to construe only when it becomes an Act. I think this discussion has gone a long way beyond the words of the Bill. These joint conciliation committees may agree to anything they like, without any result except, of course, that each side may act upon what it is prepared to do without compulsion. Taking the words in subsections (4) and (5), "where a rate of wages has been agreed, confirmed and. advertised" and so forth, and then the words "shall be an implied term of every contract" to pay wages, and putting these two things together, the only thing that these conciliation committees can do, so far as I can see, is to agree upon a rate of wages, whereupon, after some mechanical processes, that rate of wages will become a contract which can be sued on. A rate of wages has nothing to do with a cottage, and particularly has it nothing to do with a particular cottage.
I do not know what an agreement upon a rate of wages applicable to a number of persons has to do with the value of particular cottages in which individual persons happen to be allowed to reside. If there is a custom of the country to allow various things to workmen, it may be that, in fixing the rate of wages, they should say that one rate of wages applies where that custom is acted upon, and that where it is not acted upon; another rate of wages will apply. But I do not at present understand how they can bring in cottages at all. I may perhaps, parenthetically, doubt whether the "rate of wages" gives them any power over hours, but a great many of your Lordships seemed to think that it would be so, and, being one who does not think that the arrangement will work at all, I do not think it incumbent upon me at eight minutes to eight to explain in what way, or for what reasons, it will not work.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I venture to hope that the noble Earl opposite will consider this matter before the Third Reading, because I think the
434
noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, has brought up a very important matter which has hitherto been entirely overlooked. You are entirely scrapping the central wages board, which decided for various parts of the country what, was the permitted value per week of a cottage for this purpose. This is not decided by the local committees. The Bill gives power to deal only with wages and hours. It is true that in days gone by the central committee were able to define by their orders the word "wages" as including all remuneration whether in meal or malt, in kind or in money, to the agricultural worker. But now that the central wages board disappears, and you specifically say in the Bill that the local committees are to deal with wages and hours only, and there is no one to enlarge the interpretation of wages into remuneration of all kinds, it seems to me that your local committees are either going to act ultra vires, or they are not going to fill the picture that is filled at the present time by the central wages board. I hope something will be done before the Third Reading to make it clear what is the scope, and what are the powers, of these committees, and whether in the future, as in the past, wages are to be based on the presumption that every cottage is worth 3s. a week, no more and no less. If something of that sort is not Clone, you are going to have a most unequal, and in some cases most unfair, settlement, owing to the lack of any clear statement of what wages mean.
THE EARL, OF ANCASTER: I shall be very pleased to look into the matter before the Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("agreement") and insert ("contract")
Page 4,line 29, leave out ("agreement") and insert ("contract")
Page 4,line 32, leave out ("agreement") and insert ("contract'')
Page 4,line 36, leave out ("made").
Page 5, line 2, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 7.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert the words: "Except in respect of any particular matter in respect of which the committee agrees that the chairman shall have the power to vote." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the

435
rather important question of the chairman. It is a question of whether the chairman should have a vote or not. As your Lordships are aware', we decided that he was not to have a vote, but this Amendment is to insert"except in respect of any particular matter in respect of which the committee agrees that the chairman shall have the power to vote." That is to enable the committee to give the chairman a vote ad hoc; that is to say, on a particular question they can allow him, or request him, to vote, if they think fit. I think there was considerable weight in your Lordships' contention the other evening that it would never do to have this One man given a vote, and then, once he had been given the vote, to allow him to exercise it on all future occasions, so that he would simply then remain for good and all as a sort of fixed arbitrator, and we should get back to the old principle. We do think, on the other hand, that it is a little too far to go to say that on no occasion, even if the Committee themselves desired it, should the chairman be able to have a vote. If the committee are all agreed that, for one particular subject, the chairman should have a vote, they should be allowed to carry out their wishes. For that purpose I propose this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 10, at end insert (" except in respect of any particular matters in respect of which the committee agrees that the chairman shall have the power to vote").—(The Earl of Ancasler.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, as I was responsible for the Amendment carried
in Committee, may I express the hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment? I still think that the noble Earl is confusing two different things—that is to say, the office of chairman, who is a continuing president of this committee, with that of arbiter or arbitrator, who will be called in ad hoc to settle some particular difficulty.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: To save time, may I reply to that at once? If the committee wish to bring in an arbitrator ad hoc they can do so. If they want to ask their chairman to act as arbitrator ad hoc they can give him a vote, and they can take it away again. If they want an outside arbitrator to come in, they can have one.
LORD BLEDISLOE: They can have the chairman as an outside arbitrator if they think fit, but many of us feel very strongly that the chairman should not be regarded in any way as a partisan. Once he has acted on an arbitration and given a vote on that particular question, he is bound to be regarded as a partisan. We think he should act from the start, being chairman of this committee, as an independent person who gives no vote at all. He would have to hold the balance between conflicting claims, and guide them along the path of conciliation.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 34; Not-Contents,29.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V.(L. Chancellor.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Morton, E.

Faringdon, L.

Sutherland, D.

Onslow, E.

Gorell, L.

Exeter, M.

Plymouth, E.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Killanin, L,

Bradford, E.

Chilston, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Peel, V.

Ludlow, L.

Clarendon, E.

Redesdale, L.

Kimberley, E.

Abinger, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lucan, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wigan, L.(L. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Selborne, E.

Ebury, L

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

Bath, M.

Goschen, V.

Crewe, M.

Hood, V.

Erskine, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Harris, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bledisloe, L.[Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Brownlow, L.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

Dartmouth, E.

Clinton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

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

Cottesloe, L.

Strachie, L.

Denman, L.

Sumner, L.

Midleton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Vernon, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The next Amendment is drafting, and is put in to satisfy a noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, after (" woodland ") insert (" or woodland nurseries").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Repeal of s. 15 of 10 & 11 Geo. 5 c. 76.
6. Section fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1920' is hereby repealed.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble Earl said: In view of the fact that Clause 6 was inserted in Committee at a late hour and by a small majority in a thin House, I propose to ask your Lordships to delete the clause. I am not aware of the practice of this House as to confining Amendments of a Bill to such as fall fairly within the scope of the Bill, though not strictly within the precise words of the Title which no doubt is capable of amendment, but I suggest that such would be a convenient practice. There can be no question that a repeal of Section 15 of the Agriculture Act, 1920, is riot within the scope of a Bill to -repeal the Corn Production Acts, as it forms no part of those Acts, nor is the repeal of subsection (1) of that section an amendment of that section that can be said to be a consequential amendment, i.e., consequential on the repeal of the Corn Production Acts.
The Title, as amended, is therefore inappropriate to cover the clause as proposed to be amended, and even more inappropriate to the repeal of the entire section. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the merits of the subsection which Lord Strachie now proposes to repeal, but I may point out that the subsection does not operate until Regulations have been made and been allowed by your Lordships' House to come into operation, so that its repeal eau only be supported by the view that your Lordships fear that the time might come when this House would assent to the subsection being brought into operation and that it is undesirable that your Lordships should have the opportunity of departing from the decision you arrived at on this section. I must therefore ask your Lordships to delete the clause.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I will not follow the noble Earl into the question of procedure, because it is quite clear that the Title of a Bill has often been altered in another place. I am rather surprised at the noble Earl saying it is an inconvenient thing to repeal part of a Bill when what is being clone by this very Bill is to repeal part of a Bill which was only passed six months ago. His argument is a double-edged one, and applies more to himself than to me. I will content myself with a quotation from the speech of the noble Earl in the Second Reading debate on the Bill of 1920, when he said:—
"There is also a very dangerous clause in this Bill, and one which, I believe, has never occurred in any system of nationalisation before. What does it say I It says the owner of a property is not to be the judge of what are suitable repairs to his building or laud; ho is not to be the judge of improvements to his property. A third party, a Government agent, is to be the judge of what repairs are necessary and what improvements are to be carried out, not at the nation's expense, but at the man's expense whose land is nationalised."
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That was on Second Reading, but it was all altered in Committee.
LORD STRACHIE: It was altered only in this sense, that power was given to the Government to make Regulations, and, if the Government was supported by Parliament, those Regulations would conic into effect. But the noble Lord voted against the Third Reading of the Bill, although there were very few who did so. I did not, although I disliked it very much. That shows he was not satisfied with these Regulations, and I do not see how he can pretend to disagree with the view that the landlord ought to be the judge of what improvements should be made, and not the tenant. It does seem very unfair, especially in these days, with the enormous expense of labour and of material, to put it into the power of any tenant to insist on certain improvements if the Government are successful in carrying these Regulations. The Minister of Agriculture has himself told me that he means to bring this in again and to carry it next session. That is a very fair challenge to me. I see no reason, therefore, why I should not persist now, and try once for all to stop these Regulations being made. It was a much sounder principle which the noble Earl enunciated on the Second Reading, that the landlord, and not the Government, or even Parliament, should be the judge of what improvements ought to be made.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Really the point is not whether Section 15 of the Act of last year is good or had. There may be other good or bad parts in the unrepealed portions of the Act. My contention is that it is irrelevant to this Bill. The sole object of this Bill is to deal with the wages boards and prices, which are contingent on wages boards. Section 15 deals with the amendment of the law as to improvements. I dare say there is great justice in what Lord Strachie says, and I dare say a great many of your Lordships share his view. But at this juncture of the Bill, which does not deal with this matter at all—and, in point of fact, Lord Strachie's Amendment is outside the Title of the Bill—I do not think it is fair for those who criticise the improvements clause to do so without giving a similar chance to the other people, who may have different views on that subject from ourselves. We are taking advantage, without notice, of the tenant farmer. People think that this Section 15 requires amendment—I am quite ready to concede that it does—but the proper time to amend it is by a separate Bill, dealing with the whole question of improvements, and on an occasion when everybody can state his case. That we should choose one clause that we dislike, and cut it out, without allowing the matter to be fully discussed, would lay us open to very serious animadversion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: When the noble Earl complains that those who are entitled to speak for the tenant farmers have not had au opportunity of considering this matter, that is entirely due to the manner in which His Majesty's Government press their legislation forward. Nobody asked that this matter should be considered in a great hurry, at the forced close of the session. There is no reason why it should not have come up to us very much earlier, with the possibility of this matter, among other matters, being fully considered.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I only meant that, so far as I was concerned, T never dreamt that there was even going to be a Division upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I most respectfully protest against the suggestion made by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that there is anything irregular in the present proceedings before your
440
Lordships. There was nothing irregular in Committee, but it is in the.highest degree irregular to question the decision of your Lordships' House upon the next stage. The decision was made by your Lordships' House, and that governed us as a matter of order. We are the supreme judges of order in our own House, and there is nothing more to be said. As regards the merits of the matter, I feel that the Government are not entitled to complain that certain alterations are made in the principal Act, because the very nature of their Bill is to repeal part of the principal Act, and if your Lordships desire that something else should be repealed that does not seem to me to be at all a surprising matter. I do not think the Government have made out a strong case for reversing what was passed in Committee. The usual practice is to accept what has been done on a particular stage until a strong argument is alleged to reverse it. I should personally vote in favour of maintaining what the House has already agreed to, unless a strong argument is advanced to the contrary.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Earl has not reminded himself of some of the speeches which were made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture before the introduction of the Agriculture Bill into Parliament, because, if there was one thing which was emphasised more than another, it was that this great Agriculture Bill, which was going to provide a national agricultural policy for all time, was a well-balanced structure, which would provide advantages for every section of the agricultural community—landowners, tenant farmers, and workmen—and would also impose upon them certain responsibilities and duties of an onerous character.
What is it that has actually happened I Your Lordships will notice that the part of the Bill which relates to farmers and workpeople has been scrapped so far as it imposed burdens upon them; but that part of the Bill remains intact which imposes upon landowners burdens which are supposed to correspond to the inconveniences or burdens imposed by the Agriculture Act upon other sections of the agricultural community. We do not ask, as I think we might, that the whole of Part II should be similarly scrapped, but we ask for the repeal of one single subsection of a section.of that Act which imposes new and very onerous burdens upon

441
what is now relatively a very poverty-stricken section of the population, in view of the fact that we are faced now with decreasing prosperity in the agricultural industry, which the landlord is bound to feel ultimately at least as much as the other two sections of the community. The point is that this provision should be repealed in order that no new burden should be thrown—not on the initiative of the landlord or the tenant, but by a Government mandate—upon landowners who may be wholly unable to meet it, in consequence of the fact that certain of their tenants have sufficient money in their pockets and are prepared to expend it upon an improvement which they may desire, which the Ministry may authorise, but which may be of no possible use to a subsequent tenant.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Then the landowners pay no compensation.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I now beg to move the insertion of the new schedule which appears in my name on the Marshalled List of Amendments.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the following Schedule—
Provisions of the Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920, relating to the destruction of injurious weeds as continued in force.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything upon the merits of this question. I rise for one moment only upon a question of order, because one must be careful that doctrines are not laid down which may be a little misleading hereafter. There are questions upon which your Lordships have inadvertently reached conclusions which have made it debatable afterwards whether the result was harmonious with your Lordships' practice. When attention has been thereafter directed to those points your Lordships have reconsidered them. Whether this is such a case I do not stop to inquire. But the noble Earl has said that the position which has been taken is practically on the verge.
On Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Midleton, E.

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

Morton, E.

Bath, M.

Erskine, L.

Crewe, M.

Goschen V.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Hood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ampthill, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bledisloe, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Brownlow, L.

Redesdale, L.

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

Clinton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Denman, L.

Strachie L. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sumner, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ebury, L.

Vernon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Plymouth, E.

Faringdon, L.

Sutherland, D.

Portsmouth, E.

Gorell, L.

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Chilston, V.

Killanin, L,

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ludlow, L.

Clarendon, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

(1) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Schedule applies growing upon any land, he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice.
(2) Where, under this Schedule, notice is served on a tenant a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord.
(3) Where a notice has been served under this Schedule on the occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to cut down or destroy weeds and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall on summary conviction be liable,

443
in respect of each offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds mal to a. further fine not exceeding twenty shillings for every day dining which the default continues after conviction:
Provided that—

(a) Proceedings for an offence under this paragraph shall not be instituted except by the Minister; and

(b) The Minister shall be entitled to execute any work specified in the notice and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default the reasonable cost of executing such work in a proper manner, and the right of instituting any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice.

(4) Any person authorised in that behalf by the Minister or by any body of persons exercising any powers of the Minister on his behalf may, for the purpose of carrying this Schedule into effect, on the production, if so required, of his authority, enter on and inspect any land. The occupier shall in all such cases be served with notice of the date on which the inspection is to take place.
If any person prevents or obstructs the entry for the purpose of this Schedule upon any land of any person authorised under this Schedule he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(5) Every notice required to be served under this Schedule on the occupier of any land may either be served personally on him or sent by registered post to or left at his usual place of abode in the United Kingdom, and in case any person on whom any such notice is to be served is absent from the United Kingdom, and his usual place of abode in the United Kingdom after diligent inquiry be found, the notice may be served by affixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of the land.
(6) The Minister may authorise the Agricultural Committee of any county or borough to exercise on behalf of the Minister any of the powers of the Minister under this Schedule.
(7) Any expenses incurred by the Minister under this Schedule up to an amount approved by the Treasury shall be defrayed out of the monies provided by Parliament.
(8) The injurious weeds to which this Schedule applies are the following, that his to say, Spear Thistle (Carduus Lanceolatus L), Creeping, or Field Thistle (Carduus Arvensis Curt), Curled Dock (Rumex Crispus L), Broad-leaved Dock (Rumex Obtusifolius L), and Ragwort (Senecio Jacobæa L).
(9) In this Schedule the expression"owner"includes a person entitled for his life or other limited estate, and the expression"occupier"means in the case of any public road the authority by whom the road is being maintained and. in the case of unoccupied land the person entitled to the occupation thereof.
(10) This Schedule shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:—

(i) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

444

(ii) For the reference to the Agricultura Committee of any county or borough there shall be substituted a reference to the body of persons constituted for any area under the powers specified in paragraph (d) of the proviso to section one of this Act.

The provision requiring that proceedings for an offence shall not be instituted except by the Minister shall not apply.
This Schedule shall not apply to Ireland.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: Your Lordships will see that I propose to amend the suggested new Schedule. My first Amendment, which is purely drafting, is to leave out in line I of paragraph (8) the word "applies" and to insert"shall apply." Then I add subsequently, in line 5 of the same paragraph, "and such other injurious weeds as the Minister may, from time to time, by regulation prescribe." I wish to remind the noble Earl that under the Agriculture Act there is a provision for the making of Regulations prescribing the injurious weeds to which this subsection applies. As matters stand, your Lordships are asked to stereotype in this Bill five weeds only, to the exclusion of all other weeds which every expert admits ought eventually to be dealt with in the same manner. May I also remind your Lordships that there are several Acts now being administered by the Ministry of Agriculture—notably, the Injurious Insects and Pests Act—under which it is possible for the Ministry to make lists of pests which are injuring agriculture and which ought to be dealt with in a similar manner to noxious weeds? I hope, as I am simply attempting to make this provision more workable and more effective in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture for the time being, that the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 5, at end insert (" and such other injurious weeds as the Minister may from time to time by regulation prescribe ").—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am unable to accept this Amendment. I should like to say at the outset that it would mean Orders lying on the Table, and after my past experience of Orders lying on the Table of this House, I do not think it is a desirable way of treating the matter. But that is not really the serious objection. The serious objection is this. You are going to allow any future Minister to

445
put into Orders any number of weeds, and thereby you are setting up the whole system of control of cultivation again. I do not intend, at this late hour of the night, to enter into a long speech, but I w ill give one simple instance. It is possible that I, as a farmer, may have some charlock in my fields, and, if the noble Lord's Amendment is carried, I may be ordered by tie agricultural committee to spend £50 or £60 on boys pulling up the charlock.
LORD BLEDISLOE: That is not a wind-sown seed.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I admit it is a nasty weed. But what is the use of saving that you are to abolish control of cultivation, and then make it possible for agricultural committees to conic down and order farmers to get rid of all sorts of weeds. The committee may order farmers to furrow their fields two years running, and they may order them to employ labour in pulling out weeds. I can assure the noble Lord that no farmer would accept this Amendment for a minute.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It is already the law of the land that farmers can be ordered to get rid of weeds.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: It is not the law of the land that agricultural committees can give an order such as they would be able to give if this Amendment were carried. This simply means that you would restore control of cultivation, and for that reason I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am rather surprised at the attitude of the noble Earl opposite, because he, for the first time, has shown alarm at what the Office which he now adorns may do in the future. He is so afraid that some future Minister of Agriculture may make Regulations which would eat se a recrudescence of complete control of agricultural cultivation. I cannot see that that fear is in any sense well-grounded. I think that the analogy which Lord Bledisloe mentioned is a very sound one. Just as it is possible, with more knowledge, to add certain noxious insects to those that can be dealt with by Regulation, so the same power may be conferred upon the Minister of
446
Agriculture under this Act, to add noxious weeds. As the noble Lord behind me, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, it is a power which exists at present, and so far as I know no complaint has been made in regard to it. Why the five weeds which are mentioned in the Bill as it stands should have the special compliment of being picked out for censure in the Bill I confess I do not know. They are by no means universally dangerous. Some of them, as we know, are very noxious indeed in different parts of England, but I am certain there are others in some other parts of Great Britain which might very well be added, and I am exceedingly sorry, therefore, that the noble Earl has not seen his way to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think the attitude of the Government is most extraordinary. I say with some confidence that it dies not represent the view of any important agricultural organisation in the country. I am quite convinced that the.Royal Agricultural Society would not take the view that the noble Earl has expressed, nor do I believe the National Agricultural Council would take it. At the present moment the law is that the Minister of Agriculture has power to schedule these noxious weeds, and thereupon there is authority to deal with them. Why every weed except the five mentioned in the schedule should henceforth be protected under the special blessing of the Under-Secretary for Agriculture is beyond my power of understanding.
Surely it is madness to carry decontrol to the extent that my noble friend does. Because you are getting rid of the power of controlling, through agricultural committees, the methods of cultivation of the farmer, it does not follow that you should allow the bad farmer to grow any weeds he likes. All that my noble friend's Amendment does is to put it within the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture, under proper conditions, to increase the list of weeds included at present in the Schedule. I have the honour myself of being at this moment a. member of what is called the Advisory Committee on Agriculture, a committee drawn from the National Council of Agriculture, and I have been present at meetings at which the Minister has discussed this very matter, and has impressed on the Committee the enormous importance of dealing with the question of noxious weeds. Now my noble friend comes down and says:

447
"Preserve the liberty of the bad farmer to ruin the good farmer by weeds."
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
On Question, Amendment to insert the proposed schedule agreed to.
THE TITLE.
An Act, to repeal the Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920, 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 sections twelve and fifteen of the Agriculture Act, 1920.
Amendment moved—
Leave out (' sections twelve and fifteen ") and insert (" section twelve, and to repeal subsection (1) of section fifteen ").—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I can only say in a few words that the object of this Bill is to enable Boards of Conservators and river authorities to increase the licence duties. It is impossible at the present moment to look after and protect the rivers unless such a Bill as this is passed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.