Sitting of 24 June 1926

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],
Swindon Corporation Bill,
To be read the Third time upon Monday next.

EAST INDIA (BUDGET).
Address for "Return of the Budget of the Governor-General of India in Council for 1926–27."—[Earl Winterton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  WAR PENSION (W. E. G. DAY).
  Dr. SALTERasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that ex-Stoker William Ewart Gladstone Day, No. K. 21,477, late Royal Navy, was granted a final award of only 1·5 per cent. for 35 weeks in April, 1922, while still suffering from neurasthenia and deafness due to an explosiou on His Majesty's Ship "Bulwark" in November, 1914, when he was one of only 16 survivors; and that this pension was increased to 20s. 7d. per week on 31st December, 1925, after prolonged correspondence with his Department, when this man's neurasthenia was assessed at 20 per cent.; if he will state why the pension was reduced to 16s. on 2nd March, 1926, when his neurasthenia was still assessed at 20 per cent and his ear condition remained unchanged; and why this pension has not been made retrospective to 2nd June, 1923, more than a year after his final award of 1·5 per cent., when he was admitted to hospital and operated on for acute mastoid disease?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tyron): The hon. Member has been mis-
  516
  informed. The award made in 1922 to which he refers was in respect of deafness only. As regards the award for neurasthenia, this was originally at the rate of 30 per cent. and was reduced to 20 per cent. by the medical board of 22nd January, 1926. Mr. Day did not make a claim on the Ministry in proper form in respect of neurasthenia until February, 1925; but the award in respect of that disability was made from the date of a letter on his behalf which has been accepted as constituting an earlier claim. The award in respect of deafness in replacement of the award made in 1922 runs from the date of the medical examination by a Ministry doctor, which definitely proved the need for the amendment of the 1922 award. I can find no ground for making either award from an earlier date.
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: May I ask if this man has appealed, and if the appeal has been heard?
  Major TRYON: I do not think the matter has gone to appeal, but the Minister has accepted liability for both disabilities.
  Dr. SALTER: Is the Minister aware that the man has appealed for a hearing before the final Appeal Tribunal, and that it has been refused?
  Major TRYON: I will certainly consider that statement by the hon. Member, but the fact is that the man is getting pension on account of both his disabilities?

  DEATH IN BEDFORD GAOL (REGINALD RUSSELL).
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the circumstances attending the death of Mr. Reginald Russell, in Bedford Prison, on 23rd May;
  (2) whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the circumstances attending the death of Mr. Reginald Russell, in Bedford Prison, on 23rd May; what arrangements are made for removal to hospital of unconvicted prisoners who are seriously ill; what regulations exist for securing that the

  517
  relatives are informed of serious illness; and whether they were complied with in the present instance?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I will answer these questions together. I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in postponing this question until I had received a full report into the circumstances attending the death of this prisoner. I regret to say that the report discloses errors of judgment and failure to comply with the regulations on the part of certain officials of the prison.
  The prisoner complained of illness on the 27th April and the 10th May, and on the 11th May took to his bed until his death on the 23rd May. His disease was wrongly diagnosed, and he did not receive either the medical or nursing treatment which, in my opinion, he should have had; nor was he removed to hospital.
  The prisoner was suffering from kidney disease, and it may be that his condition was such that his life could not in any event have been saved, but that would not, of course, excuse in any way the mistakes and irregularities that were committed.
  The facts of this case, deplorable as they are, do not suggest that the regulations with regard to the treatment of illness in prison are defective, but, as in all human institutions, mistakes cannot always be avoided.
  The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the prison officials, and I have decided to take disciplinary measures in regard to the officers concerned. I am not in a position to give my final decision in regard to these to-day, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question for to-day week, I hope to have completed my decisions.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is one further point with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt, that is the question as to the relatives.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that in regard to that also the hon. Member is right. The prison regulations were not properly carried out.

  RUSSIA.

    CENTROSOYUS (ENGLAND), LIMITED (PERSONNEL).
    Captain FOXCROFTasked the Home Secretary how many Russian subjects are employed in this country by an organisation known as Centrosoyus; and how many possess permits as permanent residents?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed that the employés of Centrosoyus (England) Limited, included 21 Soviet citizens on 1st January. No visas have since been authorised for others to join that organisation. Neither these nor any other aliens hold permits to reside here permanently.

    DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of Russian nationals in this country to whom the British Government has accorded diplomatic immunity or other privileges of any kind; the number of British nationals enjoying the same privileges and treatment in Russia; what privileges connected with diplomatic post-bags or other means of written or verbal intercourse are enjoyed by representatives of Russia or other Russian citizens in this country; and will he give the same particulars as to privileges to British representatives and British citizens in Russia, and the number of such citizens to whom such privileges are granted by the Russian Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): There are 26 Soviet nationals who receive diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom. There are 12 British subjects who enjoy the same immunity in the Soviet Union, and three more who enjoy limited privilege. The privileges as regards means of communication with Russia, to which alone I presume the hon. Member refers, are defined, as far as the trade delegation are concerned, in the Trade Agreement, though the weekly weight of the bag has been raised by agreement to 5 kilogrammes. As regards the diplomatic mission, they are the customary privileges enjoyed by diplomatic missions, but the weekly weight of confidential bags

    519
    allowed is limited to 10 kilogrammes. The head or acting head of the British Mission in Moscow enjoys similar privileges.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Why are the Russian privileges double those accorded to us?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that is the case. One refers to diplomatic missions in this country and the other to the head of the trade delegation.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Do I understand there are two bodies from Russia who have diplomatic privileges, one the trade delegation, with sealed bags and special representatives, and also the diplomatic mission, with other sealed bags and other representatives? Are there two sets of persons?
    Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: As I explained yesterday, under the Trading Agreement one Russian official has been appointed with diplomatic privileges. As a matter of fact that individual is also in the diplomatic mission as commercial counsellor—the same man.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it a fact that other Embassies and Missions in this country have attached to them commercial attachés who really carry out many of the same duties as are carried out by the trade delegation of Russia?
    Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Do they also carry out propaganda against this country?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not quite sure that I appreciate the hon. Member's question. Russia is the only country which has this special Trade Agreement and under it each country has the right to appoint certain officials for the purpose of this trading business, and Russia has appointed one trade official under that agreement. As a matter of fact he is also the same gentleman who acts as commercial counsellor in the Russian Mission.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Are there not commercial counsellors attached to other Embassies just the same as Russia?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly.
    Sir W. DAVISON: I am not yet clear. Are there two sets of sealed bags, one going to the diplomatic Mission, and one to the Trade Delegation?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I thought I had made that clear. On the Trade Delegation there is one Russian official who has the right to receive sealed messages, and naturally the Russian Mission also has a right to receive sealed messages
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must not now discuss this question of policy.
    Captain A. EVANS: Have commercial attachés attached to other foreign Embassies the same right to receive sealed bags, apart from the diplomatic bags, which the Russian Commercial Attaché evidently has?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I really think this would be more properly discussed in Debate. There is a special Trade Agreement with Russia. Owing to the fact that Russia is the only country which is in this position, it does not apply to other countries.
    Captain WALTER SHAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the despatch bags of the Russian Trade Delegation are allowed into this country uncensored?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to a question asked yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Handsworth.
    Captain SHAW: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Walter Newbold, late Communist Member for Motherwell—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that question first.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it to be presumed that the Trade Delegation is not competent to carry on its business if its correspondence is subject to the ordinary censorship?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    PERSONAL INJURY (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. BASIL PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the claims for compensation from the Soviet Government for personal injury

    521
    have been satisfied; whether Mr. Joseph Martin; who was repatriated under the authority of the British Government, has yet received any compensation in response to the representations made by the Foreign Office; and what further steps His Majesty's Government intend to take to obtain satisfaction of these claims?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as I am aware, only two such claims have been paid. Mr. J. Martin has not yet, so far as I am aware, received any compensation, but his case will be included in the list of all such claims to be brought forward when a suitable opportunity offers.
    Mr. PETO: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in an answer on 23rd July, 1923, an hon. Member was informed that "in the case of compensation for personal injury a settlement is open to negotiation on the lines of the recent correspondence with the Soviet Government? This matter will be proceeded with without delay." I ask whether any steps have been taken to obtain compensation in any of the two or three hundred cases of British subjects who received personal injury from imprisonment by the Soviet Government.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON; Various efforts have been made, but the Soviet Government have made it clear that they will not consider any of these claims apart from a much wider settlement, and that settlement is to take place on terms which are not acceptable to His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. PETO: Are we to understand that the Government are perfectly powerless to give any protection or obtain any compensation for there terrible injuries?

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT (PROBATION RULES).
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Home Secretary what steps have been taken, or will be taken, to carry out the provisions of Part I of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, which comes into operation on the 1st of July next, with regard to the probation of offenders?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the Circular Letter which I sent to Magistrates in April and to the Probation Rules recently issued. I will send him copies.

    EXECUTIONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Home Secretary the number of persons under 21 years of age who have been executed in England and Wales during the last 30 years and the relative ages of each?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of persons is 22, of whom five were between 18 and 19, nine between 19 and 20, and eight between 20 and 21 years of age upon conviction.

    ASCOT RACES (METROPOLITAN POLICE).
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary what was the number of officers and men of the Metropolitan Police Force engaged in connection with the race meeting at the village of Ascot; what was the cost of their attendance; and whether any part of that cost will fall on the ratepayers in the Metropolitan Police District?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of police varied from day to day, the maximum being 606 apart from those engaged in regulating traffic on roads within the Metropolitan Police District. The cost was approximately £4,200, and was almost wholly borne by the various racecourse authorities.

    PRISON WARDERS.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Homo Secretary whether prison warders now use firearms or any other lethal weapon?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At the convict prisons of Parkhurst and Dartmoor, and at the Camp Hill Preventive Detention Prison, at all of which parties of prisoners are employed outside the walls, some of the officers, when on duty outside the walls, are armed with carbines. Apart from these, prison officers carry no weapons except staves.

    INTERNATIONAL SHARE SWINDLERS.
    Captain FAIRFAXasked the Home Secretary whether, and how soon, he proposes to introduce legislation to restrict the operations of international share

    523
    swindlers; and if it is practicable to exercise greater vigilance in preventing the entry into this country of these individuals?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as the Company Law is concerned, I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the amending legislation contemplated as the result of the report of the Company Law Amendment Committee will include provisions bearing on this question. So far as the law relating to the control of aliens is concerned, the existing provisions are adequate. Certain special instructions were given as soon as these activities came to my notice, and the result is being carefully watched.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all company swindlers are not aliens?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to say that is perfectly true, but in regard to those who are aliens I happen to have rather useful powers.

    MOTOR LICENCES (PHYSICALLY DEFECTIVE MEN).
    Sir GERALD STRICKLANDasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to take action to check the issue of motor licences to blind, deaf, and otherwise dangerous drivers?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply to this question. As I have previously stated, I have the general question of the issue of driving licences to persons suffering from physical disabilities under consideration in connection with the Bill for the better regulation of road vehicles referred to in the Gracious Speech from the Throne.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he subscribes to this description of all deaf drivers as dangerous? Is he aware that many deaf men are extremely intelligent and have excellent sight, and that any man driving certain vehicles is deafened by the noise?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As I am somewhat deaf myself, I entirely subscribe to the hon. and gallant Member's statement.
    Sir G. STRICKLAND: Does this mean that this is the reason why the same answer has been given after 12 months?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been considering it.

  EDUCATION.

    FORMS AND RETURNS.
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Education how many forms and returns are required by the Board to be prepared by teachers and educational authorities each year in respect of elementary schools and secondary schools, respectively; what are the subjects of the inquiries made; what is the estimated time occupied in preparing the replies; to what use are these returns put when made; how many clerks, approximately, are occupied in the Department in connection with them; and what means are being adopted to reduce and simplify these returns, so as to free teachers and educational authorities for their other duties?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I find some difficulty in answering my hon. Friend's question because I do not know what he intends to include under the description "forms and returns." If he will confer with me I will see what information I can give him.
    Mr. HURD: Will the Noble Lord ask two or three business men who are interested in education to go through these manifold forms and see whether they cannot be cut down, with great advantage from the point of view of economy?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member will confer with me he will find that a good many of the forms which he holds in his hand have already been revised.
    Mr. HURD: Is it not the fact that these many forms which I hold are those in use for educational bodies throughout the country? Those are the forms on which they are working.
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not know what forms the hon. Member has in his hand, but I quite agree that there has been a good deal too much complication in this administration, and if he will confer with me I will see what information I can give to him and to the House which shall be accurate and not misleading information.

    FEEDING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Education, whether he is aware that, on application being made to the Somerset Education Committee that the children in one part of the county should be fed, the Education Committee requested the names of the children requiring food, and that the teachers in the schools which the children attended were then instructed to observe and weigh the children in order to ascertain whether they are suffering as the result of the mining stoppage; whether this action is in accordance with the Regulations of the Board; and, if not, what steps he is prepared to take in the matter?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have no information as to the action stated to have been taken by the Somerset authority. It is for the local authority to decide whether there is a need in their area for the exercise of their powers to provide meals, and I do not think that I can properly interfere with their discretion in the matter.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that in a serious matter of this kind he has no power to see that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out? If I send him information of a school where the children were weighed the first week with their boots off and the second week with their boots on, will he investigate the matter?
    Sir ROBERT SANDERS: May I ask the Noble Lord if he has any reason to think that the Somerset Education Authority is not carrying out its duties properly?.
    Lord E. PERCY: In answer to the last supplementary question, I have no reason to think so. In answer to the first supplementary question, if the hon. Member will look at the Act of Parliament he will see that the local authority is only empowered to provide meals at its own cost when it is satisfied that children are unable, owing to lack of nourishment, to derive full advantage from the education provided and that no funds other than public funds are available to defray the cost of feeding them. These two things can, in their very nature, only be decided on local knowledge, and, therefore, under the terms of the Act, I think I have no right to interfere.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that whether a child needs to be fed can only be discovered by weighing it?
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities have put the Acts for the feeding of school children into operation; how many of them are providing two meals per day; and how many are providing three meals per day?
    Lord E. PERCY: The present number of authorities exercising their powers under the Education Act, 1921, to provide meals for school children is 146, of whom, according to the returns furnished to my Department, 36 provide two meals a day and 16 three meals a day.
    Mr. PALING: Has the Noble Lord had any complaints from any districts that the Feeding of School Children Act has not been put into operation?
    Lord E. PERCY: As far as I know, no complaints have come personally to my attention.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the Noble Lord say whether these meals are given on seven days of the week?
    Lord E. PERCY: I should require notice of that question.

    ANTHRAX (SHAVING BRUSHES).
    Mr. COUPERasked the Minister of Health whether there have been any cases of anthrax, contracted through infected shaving brushes, since the beginning of the year; if so, how many; and what steps have been taken to prevent any recurrence from similar sources?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): One such case has occurred this year, happily without fatal result. All practicable steps have been taken to trace other shaving brushes which have been imported into this country from the same source, with a view to their being destroyed or withheld from sale. Steps have also been taken to deal with any future consignments of shaving brushes from this source, and the matter has been referred to the Government of the country of origin in order that appropriate action may be taken.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Has the Minister considered the advisability of compelling the disinfection of shaving brushes? Does he remember that the Government have a splendid disinfecting station?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is practicable.
    Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the importance of the question, may I ask for a reply?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said that I did not think it was practicable.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Is it not possible to disinfect the bristles in bulk?
    Mr. MACKINDER: May I ask the Minister further—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think further questions ought to be put on the Paper. The question seems to have been fully answered.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Minister of Health how many voluntary contributors have become insured under the widows', orphans' and contributory old age pension scheme; and whether it is proposed to extend the period beyond the 4th July on which the scheme will be open for the admission of voluntary insured persons?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of voluntary contributors under the contributory pensions scheme cannot be stated until returns are received from the approved societies after the end of the current half-year. The Regulations enable me in special circumstances to extend the time for taking up voluntary insurance to a date not later than the 2nd January, 1927, and this power will be exercised in suitable cases.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is there any lack of co-ordination between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and certain approved societies with regard to these applications?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    MILK (MOTHERS AND CHILDREN).
    Dr. SALTERasked the Minister of Health what additional provision is being
    528
    made, as a consequence of the miners' dispute, for the supply of milk to nursing and expectant mothers and to young children through the county councils or local authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to any special action taken in this matter by local authorities. On the question of policy, I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Abertillery on the 10th instant.

    RELIEF, WHISTON BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health what he proposes to do with regard to the communications from the Whiston Board of Guardians asking his sanction to grant relief on loan of a sum, not exceeding 10s. per week, to the single miners who are locked out?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have informed the guardians that this proposal is not one which they can lawfully put into operation.

    FUEL RESEARCH DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary for Mines what amount of money was set apart in 1924 for the purpose of stimulating the activities of the Fuel Research Department; and how much of such money has been spent hitherto?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have been asked to reply to this question, on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. In 1924 the Government authorised the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to increase the annual expenditure on fuel research by a sum then estimated for 1925 at about £25,000, and for subsequent years at £35,004. The actual expenditure of the Department on fuel research was £48,145 in 1924, and £76,241 in 1925, an increase of £28,000. The expenditure for 1926 is estimated at from £92,000 to £102,000, a total increase of about £45,000 or more over the 1924 expenditure.
    Mr. PALING: Have the experiments which have been carried out in low-temperature carbonisation reached such a stage as to become a commercial proposition, or to be likely to become a commercial proposition in the near future?
    Lord E. PERCY: There is another question on the Paper in reference to that point.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord aware that in the Debate last Tuesday the Minister of Health declared that no smokeless fuel suitable for domestic grates had been discovered after all this expense?

    UNEMPLOYED MINERS (TRANSFER).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary for Mines whether the Mines Department have prepared any scheme during the past three years for the transfer of miners from less prosperous to more prosperous districts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. Arrangements exist for co-operation between my Department and miners' associations in the transfer of unemployed miners to vacancies notified to the Exchanges. No formal schemes of transfer have been prepared.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether in these schemes for transfer arrangements are made as to fares, the removal of the man's furniture, and the supply of housing accommodation in the district?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not quite sure that I caught the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. LAWSON: At the present time, as far as I understand, the scheme men are simply sent to different areas, but very little is done as regards arranging for railway fares, and there are certainly no arrangements for lodging or housing or anything of that kind, either for single or for married men?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The arrangements in question are arrangements between my Department and the local associations, which endeavour to find out, before sending a man to another district, whether there is a vacancy in that place which he would be likely to be able to fill.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that miners going from Durham, say to Yorkshire or Derbyshire, are often crowded into houses, through no fault of their own or of the people in those par-
    530
    ticular areas, and can he not see that something is done to meet this immediate demand?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down a question.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that complaints are being made regarding increases in the wholesale price of coal, in some instances amounting to as much as 120 per cent. above the pre-strike price; if he has yet concluded his inquiries into the cases of increase of cost already supplied to him by the hon. Member for Hillsborough; and whether he will now state what steps the Government are taking to prevent profiteering in coal?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have written to the hon. Member in detail concerning the cases of increases of price of which he has given me particulars. On the general question, I have recently circularised all collieries warning them that the charging of excessive prices may necessitate the Government taking action to requisition stocks or control prices. I hope this will have the effect of keeping increases within reasonable limits.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that excessive charges are being made, since he has issued a warning, may I ask how long he is going to wait before putting into effect the requisition of stocks?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think that, if the hon. Member will come and have a word with me, he will, when he has seen my letter, if he has not already got it, find in it a good deal that we can discuss together.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what basis he has intervened in cases where he has already intervened and secured a reduction in price, as in Dundee; and is he aware that, even after his intervention, which secured a reduction of 6d. per cwt., the price is still 3s. 6d. per cwt.
    Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. Of course, it is quite inevitable that, under the present conditions, there should be some increase in price; the point is whether there is actually profiteering by

    531
    an undue increase, and that is a matter that I am going into.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even after his intervention, the price has gone up 200 per cent.?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, not after I intervened. If the hon. Member has any case in mind, perhaps he will give me particulars?
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not the case that coal which is presently being sold to consumers was dug at the old price, so that any increase that is now being made over what would have been charged had there been no dispute is undoubtedly profiteering; and will the right hon. Gentleman put a stop to that?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I think the hon. Gentleman is too keen a business man not to realise that, if he is distributing coal under the present ration in very small quantities over a large area, it is obviously going to cost more than when it is distributed in larger quantities.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the areas have not increased since the dispute started, and, consequently, that the cost of distribution is the same now as it was before the dispute?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now argue the matter.

    LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
    Mr. W. M. WATSONasked the Prime Minister whether the low-temperature carbonisation of coal is to form part of the Government scheme for the reorganisation of the coal trade; if so, whether it is intended to proceed by administrative action; and whether it will take the form of assisting private enterprise or by the Government establishing carbonisation plant in various parts of the coalfields?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have been asked to reply to this question on behalf of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. In the opinion of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, it is doubtful whether any of the existing schemes for low-temperature carbonisation, though they contain many elements of promise, have as yet got
    532
    beyond the experimental stage. Low-temperature carbonisation cannot, therefore, as yet form part of any scheme for the reorganisation of the coal trade. As soon as any process or processes of low-temperature carbonisation are shown to be commercially practicable, it cannot be doubted that private enterprise will rapidly develop them. In the meanwhile, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is carrying on its own investigation at the fuel research station, and is giving its assistance in testing results which are obtained elsewhere. The hon. Member will see that in these circumstances the latter part of the question does not for the moment arise.

    RELIEF TICKETS (ASHINGTON CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Ashington Co-operative Society have refused to supply goods to anyone in exchange for relief tickets except their own members owing to their fear of rendering themselves liable for Income Tax if they did so; and if he will inquire into the position of persons not belonging to co-operative societies who received from Poor Law guardians tickets which are only negotiable at co-operative stores?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to be able to-morrow to communicate to my hon. and gallant Friend the result of the inquiries which are being made.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In view of the importance of this matter to the public, may I ask the Minister to communicate the result of the inquiry to the House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member likes to put down another question, I shall be very glad to do so.
    Sir F. HALL: Supposing I put down an unstarred question on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman answer it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the practice when the Minister cannot reply to a question right away and he wishes to give the information later, to publish the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no rule on the matter, but Ministers are always ready to meet the House in that respect. I understand that a further question is to be put down on Monday, and then the answer will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the general practice for the Minister, instead of stating that he will send the answer to the hon. Member, to ask him to put it down on the Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is to be done, I understand.

  HOUSING.

    UNHEALTHY AREAS.
    Mr. ROBERT WILSONasked the Minister of Health if he proposes to introduce legislation in pursuance of the Order made under Part II of the Housing Act, 1925, relating to unhealthy areas, on the same basis as in the case of contributions made under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which gave on the 22nd April last to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Smethwick.

    OFFICE or WORKS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many dwelling-houses are under construction by his Department; what is the average estimated cost; and how many dwelling-houses the Office of Works completed in 1925?
    Captain HACKING(for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): With the exception of a few houses required for Government employes (mainly coastguard personnel), no dwelling-houses are under construction by the Office of Works. In 1925, 20 flats were completed under the Shoreditch local authority's housing scheme at an average cost of £694 inclusive of administrative charges.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LAND PURCHASE).
    Mr. GREENEasked the Minister of Health whether, in a case where a local
    534
    authority is negotiating for the purchase of land and where sanction by a Government Department is required although no State moneys are involved, the assistance of the district valuer is available?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case referred to, the assistance of the district valuer is available. He may furnish a valuation but can negotiate only where State funds are involved.

    PUERPERAL SEPTICÆMIA.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the number of deaths due to puerperal septicæmia, following childbirth, in the Kingston area; and, in view of the fact that many of these cases have been connected with one nursing home in particular, will he cause a full inquiry to be made as to the effectiveness of the existing County Council regulations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, an inquiry has already been made into these cases by one of the medical officers of my Department, and her Report is now under consideration.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may have the contents of this Report, because this is a very serious matter? Is the Minister aware that the coroner said that he had examined six cases from this one nursing home this year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I do regard it as a very serious matter, and perhaps I shall be able to give further information to the House when I have had an opportunity of considering the, Report which is being made.

    SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (LOCAL RATES).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the injurious effect of local rates on the shipbuilding industry, referred to in the Report of the joint committee of shipbuilding employers and employés, he is prepared to consider the recommendations which they make thereon?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report mentioned has not yet been referred for my consideration. I may say, however, that the provisional proposals for the reform of the Poor Law system issued by me would have considerable bearing on the principle of the first recommendation mentioned by the hon. Member. As regards the second recommendation I am, as at present advised, doubtful whether the suspension of sinking funds would be a sound policy.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the opinion expressed by certain members of the Committee in their Report on schemes of assistance to necessitous areas that it is possible to adopt some of the principles embodied in those schemes so as to give a basis of assistance to areas which are suffering severely from the heavy burdens of rates due to post-War conditions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member's question on the 27th April.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter further, seeing that the Committee report that certain proposals are possible to be carried out?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Report was before the Parliamentary Secretary when he gave the reply to which I have referred.

  POOR LAW.

    RELIEF TO BOYS UNDER 16.
    Miss LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the question of the position of Poor Law guardians with reference to relief given to boys under 16, which he undertook to submit to these officers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question is before the Law Officers, but I have not yet received their opinion.

    GOVERNMENT LOANS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health what is the total amount outstanding of loans granted by the government to boards of guardians; what generally is the security on which these loans have been made; and what is the interest which is charged on loans to guardians?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total amount outstanding of loans granted to hoards of guardians is £3,761,675. The loans are secured by mortgages on the poor rates of the parishes and all the funds, properties and revenues of the guardians. The rate of interest charged an each loan is fixed at the time of issue of the loan. The rates for loans issued since 1st January has been 5 per cent.
    Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in regard to that £3,000,000 to which boards of guardians it has been loaned?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to that question would be rather long, and perhaps my hon. and gallant. Friend will put a question on the Paper.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any prospect of recovering any of this money?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I hope to recover the whole of it.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons entirely relieved from the payment of Income Tax through the increase in the earned income allowance provided in the Finance Act, 1925?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): It is estimated that, as a result of the increase in the earned income allowance and the relief accorded to persons over 65 years of age whose total income does not exceed £500 per annum, approximately 300,000 persons were entirely relieved from payment of Income Tax for 1925–26 who would otherwise have paid and borne tax for that year. It is not possible to divide this figure between the two reliefs but much the greater part of it is attributable to the increase of the earned income allowance.
    32. Mr. WILLIAMSalso asked the Chancellor of the. Exchequer if he can state the number of persons over 65 years of age with unearned incomes of less than £500 a year who have obtained reductions in their Income Tax assessments through the provisions of the Finance Act, 1925?
    Mr. McNEILL: I regret that this information is not available.
    33. Sir MARTIN CONWAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum levied as Income Tax, Schedule D, on the profits of universities and public schools in the last financial year; and how much is estimated to be yielded under the same head by universities and public schools in the current financial year?
    Mr. McNEILL: I regret that I am unable to furnish this information, as the statistics collected in regard to the charge of Income Tax on profits do not distinguish the profit s made by schools and colleges.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
    34.Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received a request from the retail trading community of Acton asking that the cooperative societies should be treated on the same basis as themselves for the purposes of taxation; and what has been the nature of his reply?
    Mr. McNEILL: There is no record of the receipt of the request to which my hon. Friend refers. With regard to the taxation of co-operative societies, I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a reply which was given on the subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-on-Thames on the 8th June.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries from his colleague in the Post Office as to what has happened to this interesting communication?
    Sir F. HALL: If the right lion Gentleman receives this communication, will he give it his careful consideration, so that there will be equity between the ordinary shopkeeper and co-operative societies?
    Major COLFOX: Is there not a very widespread feeling in that sense throughout the country?

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK AND SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts invested in, and the withdrawals or repayments from, the Post Office Savings Bank and National War Savings Certificates, respectively, for the years 1924 and 1925; and the total amount of National War Savings Certificates?
    Mr. McNEILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The information asked for is as follows:

    1. Post Office Savings Bank.

    —

    1924.

    1925.

    £

    £

    Deposits during the year including interest accrued during the year.

    87,660,213

    89,778,000

    Withdrawals

    80,357,763

    84,700,000

    It is not possible to give figures excluding accrued interest.

    2. Savings Certificates.

    —

    1924.

    1925.

    £

    £

    Value of certificates sold.

    27,486,502

    36,874,005

    Amount of capital withdrawn (excluding interest).

    30,570,955

    28,412,572

    The amount of the Savings Certificates outstanding (capital) on the 31st March, 1926, was £375,575,390.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
    Mr. W. M. WATSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the claim made by the Dunfermline Town Council for compensation for loss sustained through the closing of Rosyth Dockyard has yet been examined by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury;

    539
    whether a decision is likely to be arrived at shortly; and whether, before a final decision is given, the officials of the town council will have an opportunity of discussing with the Lords Commissioners any points upon which they may be dissatisfied?
    Mr. McNEILL: The Treasury are at the moment engaged in examining with the Admiralty the further documents submitted by the Dunfermline Town Council in support of the claim which they have made, and I hope that it may be possible to arrive at a decision thereon shortly. I am not yet in a position to say whether it will be necessary to ask the town council to send representatives for further oral discussion of the points raised.

    FRIESIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION FROM SOUTH AFRICA).
    Mr. A. M. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Royal Agricultural Society of England was consulted before the recent Order allowing 100 Friesian cattle to be imported from South Africa was issued; and whether the British Friesian Society itself has been consulted in the matter?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The answer to the first part is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. I would point out that the Importation of Pedigree Animals Act, 1925, only requires consultation with the Royal Agricultural Society of England and the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    INVALIDED MEN (APPEALS),
    Mr. HORE - BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Air how many men invalided from the Air Force in 1925, the cause of whose invaliding was considered not attributable to service, appealed to the War Office against the decision of the local surveying officers; and in how many instances wars the decision reversed as the result of such reinvestigation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): There were 77 appeals to the Air
    540
    Ministry from airmen invalided in 1925 for disabilities not considered to be directly attributable to Air Force service, and in three cases the appeal was allowed. I may add that the findings of local invaliding boards are investigated in all cases by the medical authorities at the Air Ministry independently of any reinvestigation on appeal.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Baronet say if his Department is considering the setting up of a proper appeal tribunal at the Ministry for these cases?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There is a proper appeal tribunal. Each case is investigated twice, first by a board and again by the medical authorities at the Air Ministry.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the man allowed to be represented at the appeal?
    Sir P.SASSOON: I should like to have notice of that question.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, as the Air Ministry has decided not to give marriage allowance to airmen under 26, he will recognise any children there may be for the ordinary children's allowance when the airman in question is old enough to qualify for marriage allowance?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark Central (Colonel Day), on 18th June.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Since the hon. Baronet gave that answer, has it not been borne in upon him that it is a very great injustice to deprive a man of an allowance in respect of his children because he was not married before he reached the age of 26?
    Sir P. SASSOON: They are not deprived. They are made an allowance for children born before the airman reached the age of 26.

    AUXILIARY DEFENCE SCHEME.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can inform the House as to the progress which

    541
    has been made in the efforts to create an auxiliary Air Force defence scheme for London; and what is the position of that force to-day?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The work of completing the four squadrons mentioned in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) on 31st March last, is proceeding satisfactorily. It is expected that a fifth squadron will be formed towards the end of the year.

    RESERVE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total strength of the Royal Air Force Reserve, and what is the number of reserve pilots available for actual flying?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the strength of the Royal Air Force Reserve as at 30th April last was 991 officers and 6,238 airmen. The answer to the last part is 708, of whom 588 are in regular flying practice and immediately available.

    CIVIL AVIATION (MILEAGE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air the total mileage flown by British civil aircraft during 1925; what was the number of miles flown by Imperial Airways, Limited; and what was the average cost per mile flown?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the total mileage flown by British civil air services flying for hire or reward was 1,031,000 miles. No full record of other mileage flown is available. The answer to the second part is 811,711 miles. As regards the last part of the question, I am not sure what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, but, on the assumption that he is referring to the cost to the State of subsidised services, the answer is 3s. 4½d. per mile flown.
    Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be possible for the hon. Baronet to give me information—not necessarily now—as to the total cost, say per ton mile flown, or some formula of that kind?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put a question down.
    Colonel DAY: Do the figures show an increase of mileage flown over 1924?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There is an increase, but the whole basis has now been altered, and it is going to be horsepower miles.

    GENERAL STRIKE (REINSTATEMENT).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the refusal of Messrs. Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson, Limited, of Stoughton Street Works, Leicester, to reinstate some 30 of their men since the general strike unless they leave their trade union; and whether, in view of the fact that this firm is on the list of contractors to the Air Ministry, he will take such facts into consideration in the allotment of future contracts?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I have no information in regard to the case referred to by the hon. Member, but the matter is in any event not one falling within the scope of the Fair Wages Clause in Government contracts, and appears to be one for discussion between the parties concerned.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the hon. Baronet make inquiries with regard to this matter, and does he not think, in view of the Prime Minister's statement, that it is a matter which should be taken into consideration?
    Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that these men left their employment, without giving any notice at all?
    Captain EVERARD: Is the hon. Baronet aware that this firm manufactures articles which protected under the Key industries Act, and does he not think that people employed in such an industry ought to remain at work?
    Sir P. SASSOON: In any event, the Air Minisiry has no power to interfere in regard to the employment of union or non-union workpeople by an independent employer.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the sole concern of the. Ministry to get the best jobs?

    CEYLON (POLL TAX).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Committee appointed by the Government to inquire into the question of the Poll Tax in Ceylon has issued a Report; if so, whether he will state the recommendations made therein; and whether it is the intention of the Government to act on those recommendations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): So far as I am aware, no Report has yet been issued; and I have no information as to the intentions of the Ceylon Government in the matter.

    CUSTOMS ARRANGEMENTS,HUDDERSFIELD.
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce has made further complaint of the delay which traders are compelled to suffer as a result of the present Customs arrangements; that a case was submitted to the secretary of the Customs House on 21st June which showed that an Italian order for British goods was compelled to wait upon the passage through the British Customs for samples which, though despatched from Milan on 29th April, had not reached their postal destination in England on 7th Jane; and whether he can provide any remedy?
    Mr. McNEILL: A complaint as to delay in the delivery of goods was received by the Customs Department on the 22nd June from the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce, who have been invited to furnish particulars which will enable the importation to be traced. On the receipt of this information, inquiries will be made forthwith, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
    Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first occasion on which goods have been delayed to a considerable extent owing to the action of the Customs authorities, and that British traders are losing orders on account of samples not being received by them?
    Commander WILLIAMS: Is not British trade suffering greatly from other interference as well?
    Mr. McNEILL: As to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I doubt very much whether that is accurate. No doubt, there have been cases of delay, but I think they have been few and far between, and are becoming more rare than they were.

    OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.
    Colonel PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received the recommendations passed by the international conference at Washington on the subject of the pollution of the sea by the discharge of oil from ships; and whether, in view of the urgency of the matter, he will take immediate steps to see what remedial action can be taken to stop this nuisance?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I would refer my hen. Friend to the replies which I gave on Tuesday on this subject, of which I am sending him a copy.

    FRUIT DISTRIBUTION (COST).
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to conclusion (M) on page 73 of the Third Report of the Imperial Economic Committee concerning the cost of distribution of fruit; and, if so, state what steps he proposes to take to remedy the high cost of distribution?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My attention has been called to this conclusion, and I understand that the Executive Committee of the Food Council will have the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Committee before them at their meeting next week.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (ARTIFICIAL TEETH).
    Captain WATERHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that 20,000,000 artificial teeth are imported annually into this country; and if he has received a request to set up a Committee under the Safeguarding of Industries Act to inquire into the position of this industry?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that considerable quantities of artificial teeth are imported, although precise figures of the imports are not available from official sources. With regard to the latter part of the question, I must adhere to the practice that statements as to whether an industry has or has not applied under the safeguarding procedure should not be made except on the appointment of a committee of inquiry.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 10,000 men who ought to be employed in this industry, but many of whom are unemployed, and does he not think that it ought properly to come under the category of a key industry? Does he agree with the policy of "British teeth for British mouths"?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not thus regarded so far, possibly owing to the failure of the Minister of Health to report false teeth as being a key industry in this country.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Could not these teeth be marked under the Merchandise Marks Bill?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not effective mastication the fons et origo of all successful business?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if the Labour party and the trade unions pursue their present policy, there will soon be no use for teeth here, false or otherwise?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the foundation of a home industry the raw material, and will the right hon. Gentleman take up the proposal of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir G. Strickland) for the introduction of elephants, so that ivory may be produced here?

    UNEMPLOYMENT (CLAYDON TRAINING CENTRE).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour if he can state the period of training now being given to men on the training colony for unemployed at Claydon, near Ipswich; whether it is proposed to shorten the period; how many of these trainees have
    546
    been loaned out to local farmers fur the purpose of hoeing sugar beet; the price paid by the farmers for such labour as compared with the price paid to ordinary workpeople for the same work; and the number of unskilled workers registered as unemployed at the Labour Exchanges, Ipswich?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The normal period of training given at Claydon training centre is six months, but it is sometimes shortened to fit in with the dates fixed for men to proceed overseas. Since the area of land belonging to the training centre is at present too small for the needs of training, it has been necessary to obtain some work from neighbouring farmers, including some sugar beet hoeing. The farmers pay a contract price, based upon the price paid to ordinary workpeople for the same work. On 14th June, 2,444 men were registered at Ipswich Employment Exchange. I am unable to state what proportion of these were unskilled.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair to take men down from London to a training colony and let them out to the farmers to do work which a large number of local men are available to carry out?
    Mr. BETTEETON: No. I am glad to allay the hon. Member's misapprehension on that point. Of this number practically none are agricultural labourers or normally employed in agriculture.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hoeing heel is not a skilled occupation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Try it!"] How do you know I have not tried it? Are any inquiries made by the Exchange authorities at Ipswich whether any of the men to whom the unemployment payment is being made are competent to do this work and are given the opportunity of taking it up rather than taking unemployed pay?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As I have already said, the men who are at present registered at the Ipswich Employment Exchange are not normally engaged in agriculture, and my right hon. Friend considers that the hoeing of beet and such-like occupations are a most useful part of the training.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it a fair thing to take men from London to do this work when he knows perfectly well there are large numbers of men in and around Ipswich out of work who are perfectly capable of doing it?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I do not see anything whatever unfair in the arrangement that is in operation. These men are undergoing a process of training to fit them for work overseas.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the hoeing of beet a most delicate operation?
    Mr. LANSBURY: You have never seen it done.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Yes, I have.

  INDIA.

    MALABAR FISHERMEN (RELIEF).
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what relief measures have been afforded to the fisher-folk in Malabar, following the absence of shoals on the Calicut coast?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My Noble Friend has no information. The matter is one for the Provincial authorities.

    SEAMEN (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE).
    Mr. SNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has adopted and enforced the recommendation concerning unemployment insurance for seamen, submitted to the members of the International Labour Organisation for consideration by the second session of the International Labour Organisation at Genoa in July, 1920; and whether he has received any representations on the subject from the Indian Seamen's Union?
    Earl WINTERTON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. The Indian Legislature recommended that no action should be taken, the question of unemployment among Indian seamen not being at present of practical importance.

    PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the
    548
    terms of reference to the Indian Public Services Commission, presided over by Mr. W. B. Barker, late legal adviser to the Board of Education, have been drafted so as to allow for consideration of appeals from all services and departments in India; and when is it proposed to publish the rules regarding appeals?
    Earl WINTERTON: The rules which are to regulate the functions of the Public Services Commission are still under the consideration of the Government of India, who are consulting the Chairman of the Commission, and my Noble Friend is not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to them.
    Mr. AMMON: Will the Noble Lord take steps to see that this point is brought under their consideration?
    Earl WINTERTON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these rules will be of considerable importance and they are under the very careful consideration of my Noble Friend and the Government of India. This point would, of course, be taken into consideration with the others.

  TRANSPORT.

    FOOTPATHS (IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport, with regard to his order that footpaths with concrete curbs are being put down along main roads in country districts on which improvement schemes are being carried out, whether any and, if so, how many county councils have objected to this procedure; and whether, in future, he will allow county councils to decide whether these footpaths are necessary or not?
    Colonel ASHLEY: There is no general order that curbs of concrete or any other material shall be laid, as part of the improvement schemes to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but it is my policy to require that due provision shall be made for the safety and convenience of foot passengers, and for lateral support of the carriageway. This frequently necessitates the use of a curb. I think I may say that there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of this course, and very few objections have reached me from county councils or other public bodies.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received protests from the Devon County Council about this being imposed upon them, and does he not think they are the best judges?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is not imposed upon them. They have consented to it.
    Mr. R. HUDSON: Is there any evidence that these footpaths are ever used?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, certainly. I think the footpaths are good from the pedestrians' point of view, and are also a convenience to the motorists.
    Mr. MARCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the county council to make the footpaths suitable for people to walk upon At present they would sooner walk on the road than on the path.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware it was stated when the Devon County Council met last neck that protests had been made about footpaths, and will he reconsider the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will inquire into it.

    ROADS(FORM 234c).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that some of the. smaller and poorer district councils find considerable difficulty in filling up Form 234c (Roads), and are in consequence unable to submit claims; and whether he will instruct his district road inspectors to assist any councils whose surveyors are unable to make out this form if they apply for help?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I was not aware that any serious difficulty had arisen. The officers of my Department are always glad to give any assistance within their power to highway authorities. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know what particular councils he has in mind, I will see that special attention is devoted to those cases.

    TOLL RIGIHTS (EXTINCTION).
    61. Sir G. STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that for a toll road of 1,066 yards in the Lunes-dale area and 1,644 yards in the Settle area £5,000 is asked to extinguish the toll rights purchased for £500; what per-
    550
    centage has the Government offered to make the same an A 1 road; and what is the contribution or assistance which he proposes to contribute towards extinguishing the toll?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will inquire into this case, which I do not think has previously been brought to my notice. In the absence of fuller particulars I am not at present in a position to express any opinion as to possible contributions from the Road Fund.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is the abolition of toll bridges as a whole under the consideration of the Ministry?
    Colonel ASHLEY: There is power under the Act of 1925 to make contributions in suitable cases.
    Captain A. EVANS: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the unfortunate toll gate between the City of Cardiff and the suburb of Penarth, which is both unfair to the pedestrians and others who use it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the local authority put the proposition up to me, I will consider it.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Minister consider the toll at O'Connell Bridge in Argyllshire?

    ROYAL NAVY (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as the Admiralty has decided not to give marriage allowance to naval ratings under 25, he will recognise any children there may be for the ordinary children's allowance when the rating in question is old enough to qualify for marriage allowance?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given last Friday on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Southwark [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, column 2614].

    NAVAL CONSTRUCTION, UNITED STATES AND JAPAN.
    Mr. AMMONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the programme of naval construction in the

    551
    United States and Japan in each of the years 1923, 1924, and 1925?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in

    U.S.A.

    JAPAN

    1923–24

    2 battleships.*

    2 aircraft carriers.*

    2 aircraft carriers.*

    10 cruisers.††

    6 cruisers.*

    14 destroyers.*

    21 submarines.*

    15 submarines.*

    1 repair ship.*

    4 oilers.*

    1 gunboat.*

    2 torpedo depot ships.*

    2 destroyer depot ships.*

    4 river gunboats.*

    1 submarine depot ship.*

    3 minesweepers*

    1924–25

    2 aircraft carriers.*

    2 aircraft carriers.*

    2 cruisers.*

    11 cruisers.*§

    10 submarines.†

    14 destroyers.

    2 destroyer depot ships.*

    16 submarines.*

    1 submarine depot ship.*

    1 oiler.*

    3 minesweepers.*

    1925–26

    2 aircraft carriers.*

    2 aircraft carriers.*

    2 cruisers(10,000 tones).

    11 cruisers.*

    4 submarines‡

    11 destroyers.*

    6 river gunboats.

    12 submarines ‡‡

    1 submarine tender.*

    2 minesweepers.

    * Continued from previous year

    † 9 Continued from previous year

    ‡1 continued from previous year

    § 5 continued from previous year

    4 Continued from previous year

    ¶ 8 Continued from previous year

    ** 6 continued from previous year.

    ‡8 Continued from previous year

    ‡‡15 continued from previous year

    Mr. AMMONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information showing that the Japanese Government is now building cruisers of about 7,000 tons as opposed to 10,000 tons allowed by the Washington Convention; and, approximately, what cost is thereby saved?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Japanese Government is now building four cruisers of 7,100 tons displacement, and four of 10,000 tons displacement. The 7,100 ton cruisers were laid down before the 10,000 tons vessels, and. so far as is known, the Japanese do not contemplate laying down any further vessels of the 7,100 ton class. The cost of the 7,100 ton cruisers is estimated at from 16 to 17 million Yen, and the 10,000 ton cruisers at about 22 million Yen.

    DEATH AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON (JOHN. FORS1JAW).
    Mr. PURCELLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. John Forshaw, 4, Peacock Street, Salford, who, after his house was raided by the police on
    552
    the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing the number of vessels actually under con struction during the years indicated.
    The list is as follows:
    14th May, was taken to the Salford Town Hail police station whether he is aware that he informed the officers that he was suffering from diabetes and asked to see a doctor that this request was refused, as was also a request for the supply of blankets and that the windows might be closed, the only protection he had during the night being the coat of a man in the same cell who pot his coat over Mr. Forshaw who was obviously ill; and whether, seeing that after conviction the next day Mr. Forshaw was removed to Strangeways Hospital and died on 9th June, as the result of bronchitis and pneumonia contracted in the police cell, he will have a public inquiry made into this treatment given to a man prior to trial?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Forshaw was in police custody from the 14th to the 17th May and was not treated as an invalid, and made no application to be treated as such. On reception into prison on the 17th he was admitted into the prison hospital until the 20th, when he was released on bail in view of his appeal to Quarter Sessions. At that time there were no signs of illness other than

    553
    diabetes, from which he had been suffering for four years. On the 21st May he called on the police, and expressed satisfaction with his treatment during detention both in police custody and in prison. I understand that he fell ill on the 5th June, 16 days after his release from prison, and on the facts before me no connection is shown between his treatment while in custody and his death from bronchitis and pneumonia on the 9th June.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister say what business is proposed to be taken next week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): On Monday and Tuesday, we shall take the Coal Mines Bill, Second Reading.
Wednesday and Thursday: The remaining stages of the Coal Mines Bill.
Friday: Motion for the continuation of Regulations under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.
If time permit on any day next week, we shall take any other Orders on the Paper.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: In regard to the Debate to-morrow, is there any reason why the House should not be invited to express its opinion on the Motion which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Handsworth (Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson)—[That this House condemns the subversive political activities in this country of Soviet organisations admitted for purposes of trade, and is of opinion that the Trade Agreement with the Soviet Government ought to be terminated by His Majesty's Government.]
The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the Motion. It is open to any hon. Member to put on the Paper a Vote of Censure against the Government or, on the other hand, to vote against the Motion for the Adjournment.
Captain BENN: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Motion in question has been on the Paper for some days, in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend? Inasmuch as to-morrow is to he devoted to a discussion of Russian affairs, why should we not have an opportunity of voting on the specific question, instead of upon a meaningless question such as the Adjournment of the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: We thought the most convenient way of having the discussion, in which hon. Members on all sides desire to take part, was on the Adjournment.
Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we to understand that there will be a Division to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: Any hon. Member can vote against the Adjournment. That would be a way of showing his opinion.

DIVISIONS (PERSONAL INTEREST OF MEMBERS).

  COAL MINES BILLS
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you private notice—whether it is in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House for Ministers of the Crown or any other Member of this House holding shares in companies engaged directly in the business of coal mining, to introduce or vote for legislation having for its object the increase of the working hours and the general regulation of the industry?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It has been well stated by Mr. Speaker Abbot, in 1811, that disqualification does not apply in such a case. Mr. Speaker Abbot said:
  "This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the person whose votes were questioned and not in common with the rest or His Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of State policy."
  It seems to me that the Bills to which the hon. Member refers are parallel, for instance, with the Corn Production Act and the Railway Act, which were passed recently by this House.
  Mr. LANSBURY: With respect, may I call attention to the fact that in the Session of 1892 the votes of three hon. Members who voted in favour of a grant of public money in aid of a survey for a railway in Africa, from the coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza, were disallowed because all three were shareholders and one a director of the company concerned in the survey, and are not the Coal Mines Bill and the Bill which we discussed yesterday on all-fours with that?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. The quotation which the hon. Member has just given is one which he has found on

  555
  page 370 of Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" In the preceding page, he will see the ruling of Mr. Speaker Abbot, in 1811, to which I have referred. Ever since that date that ruling has governed this question.
  Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to establish a, new precedent, and that when a body of men interested in an industry like this are using their power in this House to push Bills for their own interests—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not put his own views on a point of Order. In regard to the setting up of a new precedent, I am quite ready to do that when the occasion requires it, but I do not see the occasion at present.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Shall I be in order on a future occasion, when these Bills come up, to ask for a decision of the House as to whether these votes should be allowed or not, immediately after the Division has been taken?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked for my opinion, and I have given it.
  Captain A. EVANS: Is it not a fact that when the Trade Union (Amendment) Bill was before the House, trade union officials who were Members of this House voted against it, although they were in receipt of salaries as trade union officials?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are many Bills covered by the term "State policy" For instance, there was the Bill embodying the payment of salaries to Members of Parliament. Had I taken a narrow view of the question, I suppose I might have held that no hon. Member could vote on that.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Has not the precedent of 1811 which you, Mr. Speaker, elicited, and upon which you are basing your decision, been superseded by the later decision quoted by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The two cases are entirely dissimilar.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NORTHERN IRELAND BILL,
  "to amend the Law with respect to the salaries and pensions of persons hereafter appointed to be Judges of the Supreme
  556
  Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, and with respect to certain matters connected with that Court," presented by Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS; supported by Captain Hacking; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

  JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL [Lords]
  Read the First time; to he read a Second time to-morrow, and to he printed. [Bill 142.]

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed him to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Mining Industry Bill); that they had discharged Sir Samuel Roberts from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Rating (Scotland) Bill); and had appointed in substitution: Sir Cyril Cobb.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,
  imperial War Graves Endowment Fund Bill,
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill,
  Medway Conservancy Bill, without Amendment,
  Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Bill,
  Ramsbottom Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer on Courts in India and other parts of His Majesty's Dominions jurisdiction in certain cases with respect to the dissolution of marriages, the parties whereto are domiciled in England or Scotland, and to validate certain decrees granted for the dissolution of the marriage of persons so domiciled." [Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Bill [Lord]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor. Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Eastbourne to acquire the Downs and Downland in and near the borough; to make further pro-

  557
  vision with regard to the improvement of the borough and the electricity undertaking of the Corporation; to authorise the consolidation of the rates of the borough; and for other purposes." [Eastbourne Corporation Bill [Lords]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and amend the Constitution, Acts and Regulations of the Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society; to confer further powers on that society: and for other purposes." [Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord, Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city and county of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of Gateshead to provide lifts, warehouses and other works in connection with the Bridge authorised by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Act, 1924; and for other purposes." [Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the merger of the 'separate undertaking and the general undertaking of the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company; to confer further powers upon that company; and for other purposes." [Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill[Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Company to provide and work trolley vehicles an additional routes; and for other purposes." [Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  Eastbourne Corporation Bill [Lords],
  Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill [Lords],
  Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
  Mexborough and Swindon Tramways Bill [Lords],
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Rating (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Campbell, Mr. Sanderman, and Commander Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Bourne, Lord Fermoy, and Mr. Russell.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D): Mr. John Baker, Mr. Clowes, Mr. Cove, Mr. Drewe, Mr. William Hirst, and Mr. Scurr; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Gervase Beckett, Mr. Cape, Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. John, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Spencer.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee D during the consideration of the Mining Industry Bill: Mr. William Adamson, the Earl of Dalkeith, Mr. Ellis, Sir Leolin ForestierWalker, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Greenwood, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Harney, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Mr. Lumley, Mr. Morris, Mr. David Reid, Mr. Rhys, Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. Luke Thompson, Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward, Major Sir Granville Wheler, Mr. Murrough Wilson and Mr. Wragg.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-three Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Mining Industry Bill): Lord Balniel, Mr. Bennett, Major Boyd-Carpenter, Colonel Douglas Clifton Brown, Sir William Bull, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, the Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Robert Hudson, Colonel Lane Fox, Mr. Lawson, Captain Macmillan, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Parkinson, Major Ropner, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Smillie, Mr. Solicitor-General, Major the Marquess of Titchfield, Mr. Varley, Mr. Walsh, Captain Waterhouse, Mr. Westwood, and Secretary Sir laming Worthington-Evans.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY
  [13th ALLOTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–27
  CLASS II.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £759,128, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for Eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle, Grants for Land Drainage, a Grant-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."—[Note: £49,250,000 has been coted on account]
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Before the Committee conies to consider the larger issues of policy which will be raised this afternoon let me draw attention to the figures for the Estimates. We have voted £2,750,000 for the sugar-beet industry this year as against £1,250,000 last year. The agricultural Estimates, with sugar-beet left out, amount to a gross total of £2,560,000, and, after taking into account Appropriations-in-Aid, the net total is £2,009,000. Thus the net figure is £115,000 up, as compared with last year. But this increase is more than accounted for by the payment of grants for land drainage which did not appear in last year's Estimates. The Estimates cover a very varying collection of services. They are not easy to deal with in a short speech, because they are largely unrelated and probably the public hardly realise the expenditure on a great many of them. The main functions of the Ministry are agricultural education and research, the improvement of livestock,
    572
    the protection of our flocks and herds from disease, land settlement and the collection of statistics. But we also deal with bees, mice, the sale of glebe land, the investments of universities and colleges, the enfranchisement of copyholds, the redemption of perpetual rents, the branding of barrels of herrings, the relation of tarred roads to the life of freshwater fish, and the destruction of cormorants and other destructive sea birds. We cover a very miscellaneous set of functions.
    The responsibilities of the Ministry have been increased during the past year, but I am glad to say that there has been a small decrease in the number of our staff. We are increasing the fees in various directions and trying to make some of our services self-supporting. The Select Committee on Estimates last year went into the details, and they reported that it was impossible to suggest how any material decrease of expenditure could be achieved, as the great bulk of the work done was due to duties which Parliament had definitely laid on the Department. I do not propose to deal with the fisheries side, because we have had a very interesting Debate which covered that branch of the Ministry's work. Compared with agriculture, the demands of fisheries for financial help are small. Even less than agriculture does that industry lend itself to State interference and control, therefore, the Fisheries Estimates only amount to something under £74,000. Let me take our big services first. We have been helping agricultural education by a system of grants of varying percentages. Higher agricultural education, which enjoyed a great boom for some years after the War, has now settled down. The degree course is less popular than it was and the number of students dropped from 1,500 a year ago to 1,340 now. On the other hand, the shorter and more practical course given at the, 15 farm institutes, to which the Exchequer contributes through the local authorities—
    Mr. COVE: How much?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It varies according to the service. Certain functions can get 75 per cent., and there is a scale with considerable differences. These institutes are full up, and besides the actual teaching given on the spot there

    573
    are employed nearly 300 organisers and instructors who, by means of peripatetic methods, are in touch with another 10,000 students. The scholarship system, set up by the money provided under the Corn Production Act, has proved a. great boon to the children of agricultural workers, and now that the experimental period of five years is coming to an end we are examining the whole system in the light of experience with a view to making recommendations for the future.
    4.0 p. m.
    The research of the Ministry has taken many forms. Rothamsted has covered many subjects, and one of the most interesting objects of its inquiry has been the conversion of straw into manure without using animals. Having regard to the way in which stables are now disappearing in towns, owing to the advent of the motor ears, and considering the need of market gardeners for manure, this is a very important line of research. The Cambridge Plant Breeding Station has done much for the corn grower. The Committee is familiar with Sir Rowland Biffen's work on the new Yeoman wheat. This is the most popular variety in the Eastern Counties, where there are about 8,000 acres of Yeoman II, which enables a loaf to be baked with the same bulk, weight for weight, as a loaf baked from the very best Canadian wheat. The School of Agriculture at Cambridge has been working on animal nutrition, and their discoveries have formed the basis of most fertile efforts by our county organisers, which in some cases have resulted in decreasing the cost of milk production by about half as compared with the cost of the unscientific methods which were being used. The problem of potato disease has been pursued, and agriculture has gained very much by the discovery of the varieties which are immune from wart disease. The Oxford Institute, which devotes itself to agricultural engineering, has been conducting very interesting experiments on sub-soiling, and, although the investigations are not fully complete, it appears that this most costly method of cultivation will improve the crops for many years, and that the cost of this method is got back in increased yield in the first year alone. Dr. Owen has also been working on the hot-air method—not hot-air for
    574
    politicians, but in drying crops, and we are very hopeful that in the case at least of some of the most valuable crops, this may, in due course, save the farmer from the losses of the vagaries of our climate. We are asking for money to investigate the problem of the flea which hops from one hop plant to another, and shrivels the hop plant on which it hops. We are engaged in welfare work for the ladybird. Many of these valuable beetles succumb to frost, and it is important, if possible, to keep them alive in winter in suitable homes, so that they may deal with the green fly, which causes such serious devastation.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Where are these homes for ladybirds?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We hope to find them in suitable vegetation. Perhaps the most important new departure in our research work has been on the economic side. The Ministry has published a series of reports, which, I hope, will improve marketing, and will enable the farmer to collect some of the profits which now escape. We have arranged in connection with marketing, that British agriculture shall share in the advantages of the grant which has been given for Imperial marketing. We hope to link up and co-relate the interest between the Dominion and the home producer in our markets. The Ministry has been active in investigating the most serious problem with which we have to deal in regard to disease. I need not discuss the ravages of foot-and-mouth disease, because the Committee is folly aware of it., nor need I explain the evidence upon which we have found it necessary to place the embargo on fresh meat from infected countries, but I do wish to answer the question why this embargo was not imposed before. I think that question is due to insufficient appreciation of the difficulties of getting evidence in this kind of case. Generally when foot-and-mouth disease develops, it is anything up to 10 days after infection. By the time inquiries are made, the swill on which the pigs were fed has been consumed, and it is impossible to get samples and to trace the possible infectivity of those ingredients.
    The efforts of our veterinary research staff have been untiring in this direction, and I do want to tell the Committee

    575
    what a loss we have suffered in the death of Sir Stewart Stockman. I think the Committee will realise how great a figure he was in veterinary research all the world over, and no one who had not worked in the Department could appreciate to what an extraordinary degree he combined scientific knowledge with rare administrative ability. Now that we have got this evidence of infection through imported Continental carcases, and now that, necessarily, we are very anxious as to what other sources of infection may still exist, Sir Stewart Stockman's sage counsels are lost. He had been at work for years on foot-and-mouth disease, and shortly before his death he was in the Argentine inquiring into the position in that country, which, fortunately, at the moment is considerably better. In spite of allegations to the, contrary it was our own Superintendent-Inspector in Scotland, while tracing the matter back, who was able to prove that infection was communicable from these diseased carcases. We not only had the evidence that the disease had broken out where effluent from a bacon factory was being drunk by the cattle, but it was possible to make a filtrate from some of the diseased feet removed from the factory and by injecting that filtrate into veins of other animals to cause communication of foot-and-mouth disease. There was, therefore, no question as to the cause of the outbreak. That there are other sources of infection, I should be very far from denying, but I do want to assure the Committee as to the wisdom of the step we took, by drawing a distinction between the direct infectivity of an infected carcase and other mechanical carriers which may bring in the disease, but with which we cannot deal unless we get distinct evidence.
    I regret that this embargo has caused inconvenience to the meat trade, but I am afraid there was no alternative, no method of inspection abroad, no method of standstill orders by which we could deal with the heavy infection which now exists in Europe. In the last two years no less than 250,000 outbreaks per year have occurred in neighbouring European countries. As to the inconvenience to the consumer in the matter of foreign fresh meat, it must be realised
    576
    that this only represents about 3 per cent. of our total meat supplies. The most important kind of meat affected is pork. In 1923 we had 2,600,000 pigs in this country. The following year we jumped up to 3,228,000. In 1925, we dropped down again to 2,644,000. So that if you can get this fluctuation of 600,000 pigs in one year twice over, it is clear that it is not beyond the resources of British agriculture to make up the 700,000 cwts. of fresh pork which may be kept out by means of this embargo. Of course, there may be a temporary shortage of veal, but there has been a steady increase in our mulch cows by 14 per cent. in 15 years. Of course, it is from our dairy herds that we get the unwanted calf which provides us with our veal.
    Our work is not merely negative. We are actively assisting agriculture by positive methods. We have an elaborate system of premiums for livestock, for bulls, boars, rams and heavy horses. We have a milk recording system for increasing the output, and clean milk competitions for improving the quality of milk. In such ways I believe the farmer can be helped to solve his economic difficulties, and I believe that the drastic and revolutionary measures which are now being put forward from different quarters, while they may or may not prove to have political value for their authors, would intensify rather than ease the difficulties which confront the British farmer. There is really no mystery as to the difficulty from which he suffers.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with matters which might require legislation, and that can hardly he discussed in Committee.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think they altogether require legislation. There are a good many criticisms we have not gone far into, and many statements that the output of the land is not what it should be, and I think the Committee would be disappointed, in view of all these doubts which have been expressed, if it were not possible to-day to deal with the question, and see how far it is within our resources.
    The CHAIRMAN: That, of course, is perfectly in order. The right hon. Gentleman's allusion to political con-

    577
    sequences brought into my mind the possibility of matters which would require legislation.
    Mr. GUINNESS: You have given me early warning, and I hope to try to keep within your ruling. I do not think there is really any mystery as to the cause of our agricultural difficulties. For the last six years there has been-a steady drop in our agricultural prices. In two years alone they dropped 120 points—a very serious matter—compared with the previous worst drop of 50 points in 20 years from 1873 to 1893. That, clearly, is not due to land tenure. It would not be cured by any alteration in that system of tenure. It would not be cured by our attempting to control the detailed methods of British agriculture by the agency of a new political machine, which, I know, it would be out of order for me to discuss, or by means of increasing the inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not object in the least to this matter being raised, as long as you rule that it will be open to me to show that those proposals will result in an increase in agricultural produce. If that be permissible, then I certainly do not object. I only want to know, if the right hon. Gentleman is permitted to offer that criticism, I shall also be in a position to answer him.
    Mr. GUINNESS: It does seem to me entirely relevant to this Vote and to the work of the Ministry whether we are sufficiently dealing with the problem, or whether we ought to dictate to the farmer the methods he ought to adopt.
    The CHAIRMAN: The rule is that proposed legislation may not be discussed on these occasions, and the rule is a very obvious one because, otherwise, the Debate might he turned away from the administration of the Ministry to all sorts of proposals which would require Bills. I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture was getting a little near subjects of possible legislation, and, if he were to do that in anticipation, I could not prevent the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or others, from replying to him.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I shall endeavour not to transgress beyond the limit which your ruling has indicated. The decline in
    578
    corn-growing in this country is due to the vast spaces with which we are now in competition, and, in face of such competition, a reorganisation of our methods is inevitable. As we have said in our White Paper on agricultural policy, we notice in recent years a tendency to develop farming for meat and milk, but the experience of our neighbours shows that this type of farming is in no way inconsistent with a large arable area. The Government have not in any way encouraged, and will not encourage, grass farming as such. On the contrary, we are subsidising sugar beet, and thereby providing a substitute for that root crop which is found to be the least profitable item in the normal rotation, and we are therefore making corn-growing more profitable, and we are also helping stock-raising by the production of a very valuable by-product of beet as stock food.
    No doubt, if we were willing to undertake very heavy expenditure it might be possible greatly to increase the productivity of the land, but the difficulty which confronts us is that the fullest use of the land is not, under present world conditions, always possible on an economic basis. There is no reason why we should not cultivate bananas, but we could only do so at a prohibitive cost, and with no reasonable justification. Whether you leave it to the free discretion of the farmer, or whether you interfere with him, you can only get an economic return, if the community is prepared to pay. Assuming they were prepared to pay, I believe they would have to pay more if they attempted to control agriculture by Government interference. State control and interference in out recent administrative experience, have only aggravated the economic problem. Our land and climate are very variable and our war-time experience has shown that you only get the best results under individual control, and with that adaptation to varying conditions which individuals can best develop. Farming by county committees during the War, and by the Ministry I am afraid since the War in some cases, has shown that the problem of profit and loss cannot be solved by transferring the responsibility from individuals to a committee or any other body of that kind. We saw how the county committees, consisting of picked farmers—the most efficient in their counties and successful on their own

    579
    farms—failed to make a profit when dealing as a committee with different types of land. I believe control and interference are not sound in the intensely individualist industry of agriculture. You cannot force people to farm contrary to their means, and, short of the State taking over the financial responsibility for their operations, I do not think it possible to go further than we have suggested in our statement of agricultural policy in the way of helping the farmer and improving his methods. An intensive effort, regardless of economic results, leads in agriculture very quickly to diminishing returns, and you can only avoid the economic penalty by the gradual adaptation of your methods to advancing scientific knowledge. Our effort must, therefore, be to press on with research, and to focus the results of that research by making scientific information available to the farmer so that he may adopt the most profitable methods.
    I do not think the position is so bad as it has been painted in some quarters. We hear many unfavourable comparisons with foreign results, but I think they are based on inaccurate or partial and misleading versions of the facts. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) still holds to the opinions expressed in this Green Book. [HON. MEMBERS "That is a Red Book!"] It is, as a matter of fact, the Green Book of which we have heard, but, no doubt, the Government binder, having read it, thought this red binding more suitable. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman holds to the views expressed in this book, or to the views contained in its more attenuated white offspring, which has since been published by, I think, the Land and Nation League. In any case, we have a large selection of speeches which no doubt represent the right hon. Gentleman's considered opinion, and as disquiet has been caused, especially in the minds of town dwellers by the allegations of inefficiency which have been made against agriculture, it is well to examine carefully those allegations to find on what foundations they rest. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has painted the British part of the picture much too dark, and that the Con-
    580
    tinental part is much too highly coloured. The right hon. Gentleman has told us:
    "We have the most fertile soil in Europe, but no civilised country in Europe makes so little use of its land …The produce of land here is stationary, while abroad it has doubled and trebled."
    It is necessary to remember that we have a very long start, and we cannot regret that other countries have been, able, to some extent, to catch us up. The Agricultural Tribunal, for which the right hon. Gentleman himself was largely responsible, embodied in its Report a statement by Professor Macgregor which has never been traversed, as to the output of various countries.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is that the Minority Report?
    Mr. GUINNESS: It has never been traversed, and the facts are evident from the figures. In any case, let me first deal with this point that other countries have caught us up. The case which we hear of very often is that of Denmark. There is a speech recorded in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society made by Sir Thomas Middleton, and I find in that Report the following passage:
    "What was the reason why Denmark produced 50 per cent. more output and tilled much more land than Great Britain? Sir Thomas agreed in thinking that the size of the holdings and the psychological effect of ownership had something to do with it, but the real difference was in the climate. If the climate of Denmark, as indicated by a fairly close analysis of the monthly figures, was considered, and an examination then made of the way in which Denmark was farmed in 1871, the conclusion must he reached that Denmark was very badly farmed at that time Forty-two per cent. of the land was under corn, five per cent. under rotation grass, eleven per cent, under fallow crops, while no less than forty-one per cent. was in permanent pasture. With such a climate as that of Denmark, this was far too much permanent grass, too little rotation grass, and much too low a proportion of roots. It was impossible for land under such conditions to be productive. About that period certain representative Danes came over to some of the Eastern districts of Britain and carefully studied British methods of farming under a similar climate to their own. They went home and closely copied the system of cropping followed in some parts of our East Coast."
    The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is 30 years since all other European countries restored their agriculture, and that old England is now due to fall in at the tail of the queue. Seeing that Denmark has only established her posi-

    581
    tion since she copied us, it looks as if old England, instead of falling in at the tail of the queue, is leading the procession. Naturally, when a country is far ahead of its neighbours, as they improve their methods, the difference between them must diminish, because the law of diminishing returns—unless you have an artificial system—prevents the leading country from continuing to forge ahead. It is very difficult to get a fair comparison between the agricultural positions of different countries. In our case, if you look at the figures over a period of years, you find that losses in some directions are balanced by gains in others. There are many aspects of this case which have been considered. The right hon. Gentleman is fond of quoting the calculations which were produced during the War in connection with food production. These figures are very interesting. They were very interesting when we had to consider how we could make ourselves self-supporting in regard to food, and when you had to judge between the various agricultural crops by their value as foodstuffs, but they give irrelevant results from the point of view of efficient economic production in peace time. For instance, if you take the calorific method you get an altogether disproportionate weight attached to some articles, for example, to pork and to potatoes, which have a high calorific value, and a very low allowance for eggs, which, though they may not contain very many calories, are a most valuable economic article and one which, I think, offers more and more return to the agricultural industry. Therefore, I think those figures of Professor Macgregor, for which I was looking just now and which I have now found, which show the estimates of production according to the yield of crops and the areas, are, perhaps, the fairest we can get. They have been published, or republished, in the "Economic Journal" for last September. Professor Macgregor points out the danger of using crude yields of crops. If the indices of yield are weighted by the percentages of the cropped area under each of the crops for which there were returns, then a composite index of productivity can be obtained which makes Belgium 164 and France 92, while Britain, Germany, Denmark and Holland are all on a par at about 130. Therefore, there is only
    582
    one country ahead of us, and that country is Belgium. The Agricultural Tribunal tells us something about the conditions there. It tells us that the high yield in Belgium has been possible under the following conditions:
    "In the absence of a system of compulsory education, she bas been able to make great use of child labour, with the result that 20 per cent. of her people over 12 years of age were before the War illiterate in the sense that they could neither read nor write. Their wages were very low—in some instances only half those of Britain—and this was not compensated by the difference in the cost of living, but the agricultural worker lived roughly and, except in winter, worked unreasonably long hours for low pay."
    We really do not wish to share Belgium's productivity—the only productivity ahead of ours—on such terms, and I would remind the Committee of another remark in this same Report, namely, that the prosperity of agriculture is the prosperity of persons and not of acres. The object of increased productivity can only be attained beyond a certain economic standard at the sacrifice of the standard of living of those who depend upon the land. We believe that the payment of an adequate wage is one of the most important objects which we have to secure in connection with our own administration. We strongly support the fixing of that wage by the method which we pressed for two years ago, namely, by decisions in the counties by people in touch with the conditions of the industry. Events have justified the view which we then held, and the method has brought the best possible wage, with the minimum of friction. The Ministry is working to enforce those wages, we have increased our staff of inspectors and are instituting the necessary prosecutions to see that those standards are maintained.
    Mr. COVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman claiming that Act?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We can certainly claim, without any contradiction, that it was due to our pressure in the Standing Committee upstairs that the wages were left to be fixed in the counties and not by decisions in London of people who were out of touch with county conditions. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has, of course, appreciated as well as anyone the importance, in con-

    583
    nection with the land, of the population which it carries. He has told us that the population on the land here is decreasing decade by decade, and that in other countries it is increasing. Of course, it is difficult to get recent census figures because of the dislocation since the War, but it is not true that the agricultural workers in the last few years have been decreasing in this country. According to our agricultural returns, the adult male workers in England and Wales in 1923 were 426,925; in 1924 they were 441,491; and in 1925, the last year for which we have the figures, they were 441,944, so that there had been a small increase. Before the War decreases, no doubt, were taking place, but it is not true that the decreases over a term of years were as great in this country—the right hon. Gentleman said they were much greater, but they were not even as great—as they were in the case of our chief competitors. If you take the census figures for 1381 and 1911, you will find that for this country there was a decline of 3·2 per cent. In Germany—the figures are not those for exactly the same years, because it depends on the census—there was a decline of 7·3 per cent., in Belgium of 15·5 per cent., and in France of 7 per cent. Therefore, so far from there being an increase in the great industrial countries in those last years for which we can get a true comparison, the last years before the areas were changed by the re-fixing of frontiers during the War, the other industrial countries were losing their agricultural population more quickly than we were here.
    Of course, you can make out that the position here is very bad if you leave out of account the fact that a large amount of our area is used for other than agricultural, purposes. Obviously, if one adopted the methods of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for earnarvon Boroughs, and said that, if we had the same population on the land in proportion to the area as Denmark, Germany and Holland, one could get very startling results, but the calculation is based on the agricultural population per square mile of the total area, not of the agricultural area, and naturally that is unfavourable to the industrial country, where a much higher proportion of the land is needed for the purpose of industry and
    584
    for the purpose of housing a vaster population than in agricultural communities like Denmark, and where, therefore, a far smaller proportion is left available for agricultural purposes, and as the standard of living among the agricultural communities rises, the number that the land will support must necessarily decrease.
    I have spoken chiefly of what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said, but the Labour party have made even wilder statements. The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) has said that the population must go back to the soil and that his scheme of land settlement would give them back 40 or 50 per cent.–50, he hoped, but at any rate 40 per cent.—of the people living directly on the soil. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to face a colossal expenditure, any such figures are absolutely out of the question. The persons engaged in agriculture expressed as a percentage of the total occupied population, to-day are just over 8 per cent., and we have spent on the small holdings movement £16,000,000 to provide 17,000 small holdings—that is post-War small holdings As at least half this cost will have to be written off as irrecoverable, that will make a net cost of about £500 per holding. You cannot settle people on the land any cheaper in other countries than we have achieved here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Well, we have the figures, and even in the virgin areas of our Dominions, we cannot do it for the £500 which represents the average that will have to be written off here. The point I want to make is that in this resettling of our land we must he limited by the amount which we can afford to pay and the amount of land available, and it is perfectly absurd as a practicable proposition, to suggest, anyhow to those who live on the land and who know what its output is, that the land could conceivably support, at any decent standard of life, five or six times those who now work on it.
    Although, however, it is both impracticable and, I think, unsound to attempt any grandiose scheme to bring back the town population to the land, where they would not really be able to make a living, small holdings are imperative to arrest the drift to the towns. They cannot he provided soundly on a large scale, partly

    585
    because of the cost, and still more because suitable land for small holdings is already occupied, and it means that where new settler are to be provided with the land, someone else has to be dispossessed. We are occupied in winding up the ex-service men's land settlement scheme, and we are eager to replace it by a new one, which is being awaited by many applicants and which will reopen what has in the past proved an invaluable training ground for future farmers. We are not, of course, contending that this in itself can solve the problem of keeping people on the land. We are trying to assist the social side of village life, and we recognise with great hope the work which has been achieved by the rural community councils, by the women's institutes, and by the development of rural industries. If one reads the reports recently published, one feels that certainly there is no lack of initiative and leadership in this direction to-day.
    The agriculturist has had a fair ground of complaint in the last two years as to the uncertainty of his position as between the various parties. Since, however, it became evident that the industry itself had no united mind, it became even more evident that the possibility of political agreement was shattered by the two Opposition parties adopting the view that the economic difficulties of the industry were only to be solved by various forms of nationalisation and State control. Many schemes of assistance were put forward for the relief of the industry, but all, naturally, were at the expense of the rest of the community. In default of agreement by the political parties of which there seemed no possibility, matters seemed at a standstill. In face of these conditions it was my somewhat difficult and rather uncongenial task a few months ago when I came to the Ministry of Agriculture to apply a douche of cold water to a good many unfortunate people who already were standing in the East wind. We had to make it plain that under our policy we recognised that the main-spring of agricultural prosperity must remain the self-help of the British farmer. The Ministry can do mach to improve methods. It can, perhaps, do more in a negative sense, and by avoiding interference and control.
    586
    I believe that the industry is now turning the corner. We have got back to the gold standard. The violent price fluctuations which have been so disastrous are, therefore, less probable in the future. Agriculture, naturally, cannot hope to adapt itself very quickly, but it is not alone in its troubles. Almost all the great basic industries in the country have problems, of almost equal urgency to solve. Agriculture by its nature is a slow moving business. Its cycles are spread, not only over months, but over a series of years. I have no doubt that these slow adjustments are taking place, and that that energy and initiative which have enabled the industry to surmount the recurring periods of acute depression in the past will again come to its aid in the future.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The Minister of Agriculture will not, I am sure, attribute to me any unkindly reason if I do not follow him in the earlier part of his speech, and into certain parts of the very lucid, and absorbingly interesting account he gave of the varied activities of the Ministry. I propose to deal with the matter more on the lines of the reply that he gave me last week to a question which I put to him. The right hon. Gentleman, however, towards the end of his speech betrayed that tendency which occasionally exists when hon. Members are discussing these questions, that is, to attribute to hon. Members on this side of the House the desire to refer to the land question and the questions of agriculture from a narrow and partisan angle. That is not a true suggestion. I intend not to give the slightest ground or pretext in any the remarks I shall make for anyone to levy against me that accusation, if in referring to the general conditions of agriculture at the present time, I refer to the gradual breakdown of the agricultural system and the decay of the rural life of the countryside. I shall not dogmatise. I shall not even quote the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) nor my right hon. Friend the Member for West. Swansea (Mr. Runciman). I shall quote the opinions of men of unimpeachable authority! The authorities which I shall quote are those which hon. Members opposite will not be able to challenge.
    If there he a danger, as I think there is, of this land question drifting into

    587
    the rut of party politics, who are to blame more than the Government? They received a warning only a few months ago in a letter to the "Times" from a very friendly and extremely highly-qualified critic, Sir Howard Frank. He referred contemptuously to the White Paper, which, he said, only touched the fringes of the subject, and he made suggestions both with regard to the proper object of agricultural policy and a possible method of approach to it. The Government remained deaf to the warnings of this extremely friendly critic. They have continued lamely to follow the futile path traced out in the White Paper. It is, therefore, in no partisan spirit that I wish to speak quite candidly and frankly to the Committee and to criticise the policy of the Government. It is in no partisan spirit, but as one who really feels his obligations to his constituents and to those friends and neighbours among whom he lives in the countryside, that I feel bound to condemn this policy and to call for bolder and more resolute action.
    The most important features of the Government policy are to my mind its negative features. I am glad to mention these because they are features in which I. join more or less in supporting. For instance, there is the denunciation of subsidies. These, to my mind, are thoroughly unsound expedients. In the White Paper the right hon. Gentleman says that "it is impossible to devise any scheme of subsidies which will not result in the payment of a bonus on which no return will he received by the Nation. "That I believe to be absolutely sound. There is in the background of my mind the Election of 1923, when I went about speaking on behalf of friends of mine, and found myself up against a policy of a bonus of £1 per acre on arable land, which was justified on the grounds that it would increase the arable area and maintain employment on the land. There is now a different Government, but there is the same Prime Minister and the same party, and I cordially welcome the Minister's retrospective, but unreserved condemnation of that policy, and especially in those words in which he said that "even a subsidy of £2 an acre on arable land, which would amount to over £20,000,000, would not necessarily result in any increase of arable
    588
    land." That, I believe to be the true fact of the case.
    What is there, then, on the positive side of the Government's policy? There is one thing I agree with, and that is with the increased support which the Government are giving to education and research work. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in this there is a sure foundation laid by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) when he was Minister of Agriculture. The more we cast our bread upon the waters of science, the more chance there will he for agriculture in the days to come. Then the Government tell us that they are considering schemes for credit. This, it seems to me, is a vital question. In England alone, among the European nations, the farmer has to try to make the best use he can of a system of credit which was devised primarily for urban industry. By a speech delivered in 1924, at Taunton, the Prime Minister attracted a large amount of attention in agricultural districts, and he laid particular stress upon the importance of a credit system for agriculture. He mentioned it again in his 1924 General Election Manifesto. Conservative speakers and newspapers referred often to the work of the Conservative party during 1924, and said it included the working out of some of these questions, and he hoped to have solutions ready when the time came. They came into office. They have had nearly two years of office. Now we are told by the right hon. Gentleman in the answer which he gave me last week that it all boils down to this: "Discussions are still proceeding with the interests concerned." That is not a very creditable result. I am not suggesting, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman is personally responsible for this, but it is not a very creditable record for the Government after 18 months.
    The next question they were to deal with is the further provision of small holdings. On this there is a question I wish to put to the Minister, referring to Section 10, of the White Paper where it says:
    "Provision will be made whereby the bona fide agricultural worker will he assisted to acquire as his own property a cottage and a small area of land which he can cultivate as an addition to his earnings."

    589
    That is a very important thing. No reference has been made to it. Will that be included? Does it mean that the Government are going to hold out some prospect to the labourer of raising his standard of living? There is no mention of it in the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me last week, and I hope in the reply he will be able to tell us how that matter stands.
    Mr. GUINNESS: That, of course, needs legislation.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: If he can tell us that it has been favourably considered that will be something. We are told that a Bill is being drafted to deal with small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it. Perhaps he will take it one step further, and tell us whether this particular item is to be included in that Bill. There is a real land hunger in very many parts of the country. Since the War there have been no fewer than 77,000 applications by ex-service men and civilians, and at present there are no fewer than 16,967 unsatisfied applicants—nearly 17,000. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of settlement after the War, and said it was enormous and out of all reason owing to the tremendous increase of prices, and so on. The Minister referred to the return to the gold standard, to lower prices, and also to the amount of experience which has been gained. In view of all this, the lower prices, the experience and so on, surely it should be possible to proceed with this work on a far more economical scale. The right hon. Gentleman says this Bill is going to be ready in a few weeks I do not know where we are all going to be in a few weeks' time; I hope it will not be here in this House. Surely some effort should have been made to get the Bill introduced in such time that it could be discussed and passed into law this Session. The right hon. Gentleman says "in a few weeks," and it seems to me there will be no chance of getting this Bill on the Statute Book unless the Government succeed in remaining in power another year and that it will not even be introduced until next year.
    5.0 P.M.
    The right hon. Gentleman's answer refers to the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, and he refers rather complacently to the fact that in seven county
    590
    areas there has beer an increase of wages, but in the White Paper they asserted grandiloquently that the agricultural industry was weathering the storm. The right hon. Gentleman himself has been rebuking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs for the very gloomy view he took of the situation of agriculture in this country. He said it was quite unfounded, that really agriculture was doing very well, turning the corner and prospering. He referred to the distinction between prosperous people and prosperous acres—a distinction I did Lot quite follow myself. I do not quite see how people can be prosperous on starved and unfertile acres. Then he said that no longer were there to be any price fluctuations. I did not listen to that with unmixed pleasure myself, because in the part of the country from which I come the general trend of prices at the present moment is downward, and I therefore hope there may be a little fluctuation in the other direction. On all these three counts the Minister took the view that agriculture had turned the corner. That was the view taken in the White Paper some months ago in refererce to last year's working—that agriculture had turned the corner and was becoming more prosperous. Surely, if that be so, the remarkable thing is that out of the 60 county areas, in no fewer than 53 the agricultural labourers have entirely failed to participate in that prosperity which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government state has been going on during the past 12 months.
    To continue along the lines of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me, he said that he was continuing the forestry scheme. How suspicious he is of his critics! I never dreamt he would discontinue the forestry scheme, and I do not see the object of giving us that assurance. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman himself must have been conscious of the fact that we had far too much to criticise on points of substance, and in the omissions and commissions of the Government, to waste our time on baseless imputations. Then he referred to the drainage scheme. This is new—at least it has got a new name and a new Minister to he responsible for it. This is the first time it has appeared in the Estimates of the

    591
    Ministry of Agriculture. In recent years there have been considerable but wholly inadequate sums spent on this important service. It was called unemployment relief, and there were Exchequer grants given to drainage authorities, and grants given to groups of landowners, one-third of which has been or will be recovered from the owners, and the total of these amounted in 1921–22 to £248,778. In 1923, under the Government of my right hon. Friend, they amounted to £270,506, and in 1924–25, under the Labour Government, they amounted to £253,535. Now, under this scheme, it is only proposed to spend £170,000 this year, as compared with £253,535 last year. What does the lack of drainage cost the country in food resources every year? Would it be putting it at too high a figure at £18,000,000 a year? I do not think it would. That was the figure given as a matter of fact by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. That was his estimate of what the country lost every year through the lack of drainage.
    How much employment would it give to get these lands drained at a time such as now, when the whole of the industries of the country are suffering from the coal strike and unemployment is going up by leaps and bounds? Here, surely, is a subject for useful and productive expenditure. What is the difference between the unemployment relief scheme which has been in operation up to now and the Government's new scheme? It is only a difference in name and in the amount—for the amount spent under the old scheme was far more than the Government contemplate under the new scheme. How inadequate this £170,000 is—£1,000,000 over five years. Why, not even a Scotsman would grudge spending £170,000 if he was going to get a return of £18,000,000 a year. To give one illustration of its inadequacy, I would say that the Minister of Agriculture—I think it was the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor—appointed a Commission to consider the question of the drainage of the Ouse Basin, and they recommended an expenditure of £2,500,000. If the Government gave half of that money to assisting that drainage scheme, it would more than swallow up the small amount which they are allotting over five years for the drainage of the whole country. That will enable the Committee to
    592
    appreciate the absolute inadequacy of the Government's proposals for solving the drainage problem.
    Then there is rural housing. At last we have an assurance that the Minister of Health is going to consider that question. I remember when, in 1923, this same Minister of Health introduced his Housing Bill, several hon. Members and I pointed out the hopelessness of that policy from the point of view of rural districts. And year after year I have been appealing to the Minister of Health and still more to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Scottish Board of Health, to consider the reconditioning of existing houses and their improvement and enlargement. I am very glad to see that, at long last, there is an indication—though not more than an indication—that this is being seriously considered, and that we may hope in months to come to have some more definite proposal.
    The right hon. Gentleman then dealt with merchandise marks. If that is going to help agriculture, I should not feel in the slightest degree compelled by any consideration of Free Trade theory to vote against it. I believe the farmers consider it and desire it, not at all front the protective point of view, but they appear to think that it will help marketing. I very much doubt it. It is purely a matter of expediency. I believe there are many foreign goods, such as Danish bacon and so forth, which have such a good name that people will go on buying them, and that this proposal will actually damage the farmers far more than it will help them. It is purely from the point of view of expediency, therefore, that I approach this question, and I do not think it would be in any degree an advantage to the agricultural industry or certainly a very slight advantage, if any.
    Then with regard to sugar-beet, the right hon. Gentleman refers with some complacency to that subject, though it was introduced by the Labour Government in 1924. The right hon. Gentleman has the credit of continuing it, but it was introduced in the previous Parliament. As a matter of fact, I should like to hear from the Minister what the position is with regard to these sugar-beet factories. They are receiving enormous subsidies. Is the industry really achieving the

    593
    objects which he as Minister of Agriculture has at heart, and which we, as representing rural constituences, have at heart? Has it really given employment to the people who live in the countryside, or has it not been drawing, as I believe, for its labour upon the towns?
    That is the position. One great Conservative authority after another—statesmen, economists, publicists, and practical farmers—has declared that the present system is breaking down, that the rural life of the countryside is decaying, and that the land resources of this country are going to waste, yet the government of the Conservative party—these stalwart friends of agriculture—can boast of only one solid and fresh achievement after two scars of power, with enormous majorities in both Houses of Parliament, and that one achievement is the cash-on-delivery parcels system. That is the one fresh contribution which they have made to the solution of this problem. For the rest, they continue to pursue the policy of their predecessors. They extend it a little here and improve a little there, so far as funds permit, as the right hon. Gentleman is careful to say in the answer which he gave to me. They consider, they consult, they discuss, and they catalogue among their achievements the appointments of the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) and the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health to two Committees. Both hon. Gentlemen, I am sure, are admirably qualified for the work, but that is not one of the things which I should have expected to find in this answer which was given us, as being likely to contribute materially to the revival of the prosperity of the agricultural industry.
    This answer to which I have referred really represents the milestone which the Government have reached, after one and a half years of office and with great majories in both Houses of Parliament, on the road to restoring agricultural prosperity. I will not call this policy a fraud, but I will only say that if there is anybody who believes in it, it is certainly a delusion. Where is there in this policy any incentive to increased production? That question was asked by a great Conservative newspaper only a few weeks ago—the Sunday "Observer."
    594
    They asked, where was the incentive to increased production? What incentive was there to higher cultivation, and to more efficient markets, and what benefit for the nation was there in the matter of increased food supplies? After all, that is one of the touchstones of any successful agricultural policy, to ensure that you get the fullest economic use of the land. That was demanded the other day by no less an authority than Sir William Haldane, the great Conservative authority on this question.
    He said we must ensure that we get the full economic use of the land, but that is not being done. How is a greater rural population and more rural employment to be found by this policy, and how is the landless labourer provided for? There is only one paragraph referring to him, and that is the one, to which I have directed attention. which is not mentioned in the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave me last week. The Government's White Paper says that agriculture is weathering the storm, and there is no reason to fear that it will not adapt itself to the economic situation. What is the process of adaptation—to reduce the arable area, to lay down more and more land to grass, to reduce the number of people employed upon the land, to allow small holdings to be absorbed more rapidly than new small holdings are created, and to he satisfied with wages at their present level. The right hon. Gentleman suggested in one part of his speech that it was wrong to say that the rural population is still decreasing. I found the figures he quoted extremely unconvincing, even though accepting them without challenge. I was not able to take down the exact figures, but he showed that they went up in 1924 on the figures of 1923 and in 1925 they went down again.
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, they went up a little again.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Not over and above 1924.
    Mr. GUINNESS: They were up in 1925.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I must have taken the figures down wrongly then, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, whom I consulted at the time, also thought that the figures were down in the third year. However

    595
    that way be, there are many parts of the country where there is a steady and increasing drain from the countryside. I will take my own county as an illustration; I am sure it is a typical illustration; I know of many other counties for which similar figures hold good. In 1861 the population was 41,000; in 1891 it had fallen by 10 per cent.; in 1921 it had fallen by a further 30 per cent.; so that between 1861 and 1921 the population had dwindled from 41,000 to 28,000. This hæmorrhage is still going on unchecked. Every year we see men leaving the countryside. The population in all the villages is dwindling, and fewer and fewer children are going to the schools. It is a pity to pursue an ostrich-like policy by refusing to face facts which every hon. Member must know are the true facts, namely, that people are drifting away from the countryside. I am not concerned with the party aspect of the question, I am not out to attack any party, or to defend my own, although as far as Scotland is concerned I may say, in passing, that we have a better record of land legislation than have any other party. I hope that at the end of the five years this Government are in power they may he able to show that they have passed our record. I am attacking the Government because they have the responsibility and the opportunity of office, yet the right hon. Gentleman, in that part of his speech in which he dealt with the larger issues of policy, did not seem to grasp the seriousness of the position.
    One matter to which I wish to refer in particular, and about which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give me an answer if he replies, is the question of a national survey. It was dealt with on the Agricultural Returns Bill last year. I raised the question, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made two or three speeches on it on different occasions, and the late Minister of Agriculture, although he never officially committed the Government to the scheme, expressed his strong personal sympathy with the proposal, which was supported also in one or two stray speeches by the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Agriculture in the Labour Government. The Minister of Agriculture last year,
    596
    the present Lord Irwin, speaking on this subject, said he did not think the Agricultural Returns Bill was a Bill in which any provision for a national survey could be incorporated. He said:
    "I have in mind, if it could be achieved, something quite different. I would like to get a national record of the state and possible productivity of English land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 8th April, 1925; col. 2292, Vol. 182.]
    That is what we want. Hon. Members are apt to suggest that our facts are not right and that we argue from false premises. We do not want to do that, we would like to have the facts, and this is the only way to get the full facts on which a true land policy must be based. Then the late Minister went on:
    "Therefore, while I will certainly consider what has been suggested on this point, I am inclined to doubt whether this Bill is the Bill in which such a proposal should be carried out."
    Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he sees eye to eye with his predecessor and will introduce a Bill to enable this survey to be carried out? In the House of Lords, Lord Bledisloe, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, also gave the impression that he was thoroughly friendly to the idea. Scotland is a little more progressive in this respect, and the Secretary for Scotland has taken up the idea in a more or less practical way by starting a survey in the county of Kincardineshire. Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he cannot initiate a survey on the lines we demanded last year and which his predecessor was apparently disposed to give? I see opposite my Noble Friend the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield). In the discussion on the Board of Agriculture Estimates a few months ago he referred to the necessity for a survey from his own experience in his part of the world. Sir William Haldane, a great Conservative authority on these questions, in a letter to the "Times" a few weeks ago, demanded that this survey should be proceeded with.
    I do not wish to take up further time, and I would only sum up what I have said by saying this. We seem to know what the policy of the Government is negatively. There is to be no Protection. I support that. There are to be no subsidies. I support that. There is to be

    597
    no duty on malting barley and I give the right hon. Gentleman my strongest support on that. There is to be no potato import prohibition, there are to be no White Books, Green Books or Red Books. The Government are quite satisfied with the little white infant which they produced a few months ago. Their positive contributions to these problems is the Cash-on-Delivery parcels post system. Why have they produced only this miserable little mouse after such prolonged and heavy labour? The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor realised to the full the importance and urgency of this problem. We have been fortunate in the Ministers of Agriculture we have had under this Government. Lord Irwin, when he was Minister of Agriculture, used very serious words on this question. He is a patriotic and hard-working landowner. Speaking to his own friends and tenants at Borough Bridge, he said:
    "We are, unless I mistake, witnessing in England the gradual disappearance of the old landowning class. If that class, by taxation or for one reason or another is gradually disappearing, what is going to happen? The nation is going to say, 'We cannot watch this process going on,' and the State will come in to fill the function of the old landlord by lending capital. When it does that you may depend upon it it will claim some measure of control in the business that it finances, and so you may well find yourselves in the course of the next 30 or 40 years within measurable distance of nationalisation by a side wind."
    Again at Banbury he said that he was sure that a great many of the difficulties of agriculture were due to the fact that the landowning system was breaking down.
    That was the point of view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor only last year, and it is important for this reason. When hon. Members on this side of the House use those arguments it is sometimes suggested that we are animated only by a partisan spirit; but the speech I have quoted shows that these arguments are commending themselves to the most thoughtful statesmen and economists on the other side. Alongside the views of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor one can put the views of Lord Bledisloe and Professor Orwin, a great Conservative economist, and it is trifling with the question to suggest that it can be solved
    598
    on the lines of this White Paper. The outlook for the farmers in the part of the country I know, the far North of Scotland, is growing dark, the wages of the labourer are not improving, as more and more land is thrown down to grass his position is becoming increasingly precarious. The dry rot of depopulation is spreading through the countryside. In face of these facts the Government do nothing but pile negative on negative, and the Conservative party, always loudly proclaiming itself the only true friend of agriculture, is shirking, the responsibilities of its friendship and its shrinking from the plain task of statesmanship. Unless the Minister can give us some more reassuring declaration than he has given us this afternoon he will forfeit not only the confidence of the farmers, smallholders and labourers of the country, but will forfeit the confidence of all those who realise that it is only by sacrifices and a national effort that we shall he able to revive the rural life of Great Britain.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken said many things which I most heartily applaud, and one in particular which. I should like to reiterate, namely, his remark that we ought to be governed by realities and to face facts, to be pursuing realities and not chimeras. The Minister alluded to his painful experience last February when he was obliged to administer a cold douche to his friends who were standing in the east wind. I would like to refer to that part of the administration for which he has been responsible, to what one might call the strategy of his administration, the general handling of the problem by the Government during 18 months past. That strategy appears to me highly peculiar. It arose from the tactics pursued towards the Labour Government when in office. Week after week we were charged by Conservative Members with neglecting a first-class crisis and sacrificing the interests of the country. Great hopes were aroused by that line of opposition, and by the promises arid statements at the General Election, and these hopes were kept up by the summoning of a conference in the early days of the present Conservative administration. There was talk of a million acres of new arable land. The farmers were told that

    599
    Protection was not the only way in which these million acres of new arable land could be secured. When the conference failed, the Parliamentary Secretary was instructed to say that the Government would take up any policy formulated by the National Council of Agriculture. That policy appeared in the middle of 1925, but was entirely ignored. The farmers bitterly protested that they had been betrayed, and we appeared to have reached an impasse.
    One of the results of this was that the farmers voted against the Minister when he was compelled to seek re-election. There is a strategy of administration, and after all it was perhaps a good calculation that, if you give people time enough, their indignation cools down. In February it was time to disillusion the farmers, and the consequence was that We had the famous document which has been referred to by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Sinclair). The first part showed that after all nothing could be done, and the latter part said they would continue the measures brought in by the Labour Government of the year before. You have only to read the farming papers in order to see what the farming community thought about if. There is a very serious situation to deal with, and it ought to he approached in quite a different, spirit. There is the great problem as to whether we are utilising our national resources and doing all that can be done.
    This subject, deserves very serious treatment. The facts indicate the extra-ordinary smallness of our agricultural industry. We are a community living without primary production to a degree unparalleled in the history of the world. This is indicated by the fact which the Minister of Agriculture gave to the effect that only 8 per cent. of the workers of this country are agricultural in Germany the percentage is 36. We have actually fewer people employed in agriculture than we have at present no unemployment benefit. The amount of wheat we grow is only one-fifth of what we consume; in the case of meat the proportion is two-fifths. Our position in this respect was such that we were nearly defeated during the War by the submarine. Nobody denies that in productivity there is a relative decline as compared with other countries.
    600
    If you look at the question from the point of view of national health we are four-fifths an urban people, and the death rate is very serious, which shows the necessity of keeping our rural population as healthy as possible. The death rate in many of our great towns is 50 per cent. higher than in the rural districts, and so far from the crisis of 1924 having diminished the arable area, it is less now than it was when we were in office. We must distinguish between what is bad in those figures and what is satisfactory. What they show in the main is that by natural development we have risen to a position in which our industry has put us in a wealthier position than if we had been to a greater extent an agricultural country. It follows from the fact that our population has a lower proportion of those following agricultural pursuits that we need to keep what we have got. It is more important to us than it is to merely agricultural countries.
    We should have three aims before us. One is an improvement of our national resources; secondly, an increase in our national population; and the most important aim is that of improving our standard of life. Those aims should be very strenuously pursued. Let us see what the Government are doing. How far is the situation improveable? Lord Irwin speaking of Wales spoke of
    "a large area of inherently good land let down."
    The other day Sir Henry Rew, writing in the "Times," spoke of land of which the occupiers are unwilling to make proper use. Sir John Russell is, of course, a very well known authority, and he combats the idea that the point where the law of diminishing returns operates has been reached to the extent referred to by the Minister of Agriculture. It is well known that in recent years a very large amount of good mixed farmland has been laid down quite uneconomically, and there is a very large area let down to a slacker level of farming, with fewer men employed upon it. The causes of this are recognised by all. The supply of capital is failing, buildings are going down, drainage is going down, and that means the breakdown of private ownership. Then when you come to the side of the farmer there is a great deal of ignorance, a great deal of slackness, and the Farmers'

    601
    Union would be the first to confirm the fact.
    The standard of farming is not enforced as it should be, and there are very many men who, as a result of education, are good men, but who cannot get farms, while all the time there are farms in the hands of men who ought not to have them. If you only raise the standard of farming in this country to the level of what might be described as fairly good your production would easily be increased by 15 per cent., and that would represent a vast sum over the whole country. It is not denied that we are wasting our resources and spoiling our balance of trade. What it means in terms of human life is that sources of employment are not developed to the full. All the time we are pouring out the vast sum of money which has been alluded to by the Minister of Agriculture, but so long as we allow a leakage of our resources in this way it is like pouring water into a tub with a hole in the bottom. Very strenuous efforts will have to he made to stop the leakage. If you look at it from the point of view of the farmer he is discouraged by want of capital, and I have known many farmers who would gladly have found the capital to develop the land if they only had better security. The present security is not good enough to encourage him to lay out his capital in this direction.
    I know some farmers who have gone to the colonies because they could not get from the landlord the security they wanted. The number of workers on the land could he increased, and employment is being lost for the reasons I have stated. Houses are bad and access to allotments and small holdings is incomplete, with the result that the agricultural population silently disappears to the Colonies. The tragedy of the shrinking village is all the greater because it is concealed. There is nothing sensational, as the slums are sensational, to stir up public sympathy.
    What is remediable in this? Agriculture is suffering from a severe sickness and you can only cure it by drastic means. The Minister of Agriculture thinks it is only suffering from a cold. If the disease is not serious then
    602
    nobody will be better pleased than myself. Sir Thomas Middleton writes that there are 6,000,000 acres on the margin of tillage. Take this along with the proposals of Lord Selborne's Committee. They are two, firstly a survey and secondly control. If these authorities are reliable three million or four million acres could be brought into cultivation without any protective measures at all. Control is very difficult to exercise without ownership of the land. We therefore advocate public ownership. But the Minister thinks administration is enough.
    Therefore it is fitting to review all the administrative possibilities. What the Labour Cabinet did in this sphere was to secure from the Treasury an increase of grant for education and research—a grant of £500,000 to be spread over five years. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will he able to assure us before the debate finishes that this £100,000 a year will not be curtailed and that it will continue to be used. What is he doing in that connection about the proposals of the Tribunal? We took what proposals could be dealt with practically. Our time was short. One thing we did was to increase the grants for costing officers from £4,000 to£12,000. I hope that that is going on. In connection with economic research, we put under the Oxford Institute the experiments in regard to arable stock farming. It is a very extraordinary thing that the Tribunal should have singled out that one piece of farming reform as a cardinal remedy, as almost the chief alternative to Protection, and I think that Lord Irwin confirmed the fact that it was a cardinal remedy. Perhaps the Minister can tell us later how things are going in that connection, and what hope there is that it is really going to be a very great piece of progress. Then we came, not very long after, to the publication of the Linlithgow Report, and we instituted, in accordance with its recommendations, advances to co-operative enterprises, and set on foot the marketing inquiries.
    To my mind, the reports which have resulted from that are quite epoch-making in the farming world. They are of extraordinary interest. They reflect the highest credit upon their authors, and they do deal with what has been, perhaps, the most neglected field of study. Sir John Russell has pointed out

    603
    that we can, for instance, supply ourselves entirely with vegetables, provided we organise some means of disposing of occasional surpluses. All that is part of the marketing problem, in which we have been behindhand, and in which we are being brought up to date by these reports.
    While I am on what the Labour Government did, I should like to point to our attempts to encourage county councils to use any activities that they can develop. I sent them a Circular stating that we would find the financial help if they were disposed to do more in the way of instructors, in the way of publicity and calling attention to good examples of farming and to their own demonstration farms—if they would, for instance, try to increase the public interest in British produce and help the farmers by bringing together the Cooperative Wholesale Society people and the co-operative farmers' societies. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what is being done in that connection. Then we offered them financial help in any survey that they might be inclined to make. The Norfolk County Council have been active in carrying out survey of conditions as to lime. I do not know what other counties have done. Some counties have been very inactive about noxious weeds, and some about certificates in regard to standard of farming. These are samples of what we thought it possible to do in the time. I hope the Minister is encouraging county councils to be as active as they are willing to be.
    Since that time, a great many new points have arisen, and I would like to know what the Minister is doing in regard to some of the things that have been already recommended in the new technical reports. There is an extraordinarily interesting report on the egg trade, and its recommendations in regard to grading might be quite momentous. I myself saw last year how our foreign competitors are pushing ahead when I was at Bruges in the autumn, and how almost in a few weeks they suddenly created a highly developed egg trade. Grading will shortly become a thing which must be adopted. It may require legislative assistance, and that report is one which deserves reading by every
    604
    Member of the House. Then assistance has been given in regard to the grading of fruit, and the Ministry, I hope, is continuing to encourage the study of that question—for instance, by supplying growers with samples of new foreign grading machines. Then the report on examples of trading by the State—in Australia, Canada and so on—ended with a suggestion that the inquiry might be carried further, and it has become such an important method in world trade that I hope the Minister will see his way to encourage further study of the question. The Minister alluded to plant breeding, and to Sir Rowland Biffen's work. Perhaps he can further tell us to what extent the existing production of Yeoman has replaced imported wheat, and whether the demand for seed can yet be met, in the main, from English supplies. Not so long ago the English supplies were, of course, very small.
    On the question of foot-and-mouth disease, the Minister said that there was no need to explain—I think those were his words—the evidence in regard to the recent outbreak, and its tracing to foreign meat; but I suggest that there is great need for giving all the information he possibly can on that point. Has it been given quite fully enough? It seems to me that it is extraordinarily important, if it can possibly be argued that that may be the main cause of the outbreaks that we have had, because when you take action which at all events for a time, greatly raises prices, I think the public does demand that it should have all possible proof of the need for that action. Then there is the very important matter of disseminating the results of the research that has been carried out. Are the counties showing general activity in the matter of promoting institutes and demonstration farms? I should very much like to know what counties, or how many counties, have not yet established them. On all of these points, is it not time that the Ministry put out an annual report on its activities? The Scottish Report is an extraordinarily valuable and readable document, and I hope very much that the Minister may think it is time for that to become annual.
    There is a thing which, I think, was started under the Coalition Government, and which was greatly appreciated,

    605
    namely: a grant for the benefit of the sons of farm workers—the scholarship system. I notice that in the figures it is stated that 39 out of 286 scholarship holders in Class 3 have gone back again to be farm workers. I do not know whether that means that there was failure, or that it was something which the. Minister regards as satisfactory, but I hope in any case that the scholarship system is going on. Then I have always wished that some further use could be made of national pooling of information, and the Minister might be inclined to tell us whether the Institute at Rome has been a means of supplying information, and whether it has also received information from us. Are we in the habit of sending it the results of research—for instance, this very valuable new information that we have in regard to foot-and-mouth disease—and are we supporting the proposal for an agricultural census in 1930? On the subject of wages and the standard of living, which is of the very first importance, there have been a certain number of prosecutions, which seem to me to show that there is a very large number of men—my lion. Friend the Member for Claycross (Mr. Duncan) knows more about this matter than I do—who are afraid to use their rights under the Act, and it may be that many are not getting what is now the legal wage.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Very many.
    Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend confirms my suggestion that there are very many. Does not that point to the need for more inspectors? In the desire for economy, we kept down the number of inspectors as low as possible, but I think it looks as though there ought to be rather more complete inquiry, and as though things should not be left until complaint arises. The Minister did not use his power of asking local committees to reconsider a very low wage, but to my mind he ought not to rule out the possibility of doing that, if only for this reason, that a very disastrous strike was only just avoided in East Anglia, and it may very likely happen some fine day that a request by the Minister for reconsideration of a rate will be the only way to avoid a strike.
    6.0 P.M.
    Finally, the White Paper made a great deal of the question of credit, and, of
    606
    course, we all know that farmers are suffering from the want both of fixed capital, and of working capital. Great expectations were aroused last February, and we should all like to know what has happened. For instance, has the very interesting proposal about chattel mortgage broken down? Are the banks disposed to take up the question of mortgages on land? That is a very vital matter. The Report shows how extensively farmers are fleeced under the present system, and how it constantly causes the sale, for instance, of corn when out of condition or of unripe cattle. We seem to be unique in the fact that loans by the banks are extremely small in proportion to our total produce. I think the report shows £25,000,000 of loans as against. an annual produce of £260,000,000. That, again, is a very vital matter on which we should like information and a part of it is the question of co-operation.
    The payability of a great deal of land is destroyed by inadequate organising and lack of co-operative marketing. To my mind, it is a very happy thing that the Farmers' Union is now at last promoting in an organic way the cause of organised marketing and co-operation of various kinds. I took occasion last autumn to inquire about the co-operation in vogue among the farmers in various places along the Rhine. What strikes one is the extraordinarily high education that these farmers, even very small farmers, possess and their intense business activity. The result is that they have about 90 per cent. of their farmers in co-operative societies, while we, I think, of all kinds of cooperative societies, have fewer than 15. It has become so much a part of farming —just as manuring is a part of it—that most States are now frankly urging cooperation on similar lines to the educational advantages of other kinds which they are urging, and I want to urge on the Minister that it is time now for the Ministry to come out on the side of organised methods, as other countries have done, I should like to see the theory abandoned that the work of the Ministry is merely to supply information. I think it is about time that it should be definitely propagandist on the subject, because the Farmers' Union itself is now propagandist on the subject, and would.

    607
    I think, welcome such a new attitude on the part of the Government.
    If our agriculture were keyed up to standard in these various ways, the great question would then be what increase is possible in our production and in our agricultural population? We want to have our feet on the ground very firmly, and to look at the facts very clearly. We need not pursue the chimera that we might have a crowded land like Belgium, because one knows what a deplorably low standard of life that involves. The idea of our being self-supporting we may also rule out, but even with Free Trade a great deal is possible, and if we study the work of our experts, I think we may venture on a fairly realistic estimate of what is possible in this country under our present conditions, with quite a feasible degree of progress. If one takes the arable land which on Sir Thomas Middleton's basis might be brought into cultivation, merely by removing what might be called third-class farming, and if one takes the bacon, cheese, and poultry that we might grow by working up foreign foodstuffs, together with the increase that is possible in vegetable and fruit growing, which already shows very satisfactory progress in many parts of the country, it seems to me that we might quite well replace a quarter of our foreign imports of food. That might run to a value of £100,000,000, and it might mean the fresh employment of about 250,000 men and a new population of 1,250,000. That is a very considerable figure in our agricultural population, and it is no mean goal at which to aim. The Government say that control is not needed to produce the maximum results. Then is it possible to level up to a quite feasible standard by administration alone? I think not. The Conservative world, I always reflect, possesses the great mass of the knowledge and influenee in the agricultural sphere, and it is tragic that they do not use the extraordinary power they have to make the utmost of our agricultural resources.
    Major RUGGLES-BR ISE: I do not intend to attempt to follow all that has been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), or by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), but I took a note of one
    608
    remark that the right hon. Gentleman made, from which it appears that he takes a view, which I share, of the present position of arable farming, namely, a very gloomy view. I listened with great interest to try to gather from his subsequent remarks what were the remedies that he proposed for the alleviation of the situation. As far as I could see, his remedy is two-fold. First of all, he suggested that there should be a greater security of tenure for the tenant farmer, and, secondly, he proposed that we should go in for a better system of arable stock farming. As regards security of tenure for the tenant farmer, I believe the great body of tenant farmers to-day would be the first to admit that they really have all the security of tenure that they require. That has grown up during the last generation, and the security which they now have is ample for all requirements.
    What they have also, however, and what they do not appreciate quite to the same extent, is something which has been given to them by the Liberal party, to which the right hon. Gentleman himself belonged at one time, and that is insecurity of ownership owing to the penal taxes which have been put upon the land by the Liberal party in the past, and which, if I understand the matter aright, will be accentuated by the Labour party if and when—if they ever do—they come into power again. It is that penal taxation which has lead to the breaking-up of estates, which has compelled many farmers to become owners when they only had sufficient capital to enable them to remain tenants, which compels them to stretch one set of capital to fulfil the dual purpose of tenancy and ownership. That is one of the things from which so many of our farmers are at present suffering—not insecurity of tenure, but insecurity of ownership.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness said the credit for the sugar-beet subsidy lay with the Labour party. I think he was not quite correct. The original proposal in connection with the sugar-beet question originated quite outside the House, but eventually matters crystallised. I can remember a few years ago a great effort being made in my county to try to get the industry started. The matter was before the Conservative Government of 1922–23, but no definite

    609
    proposals were brought forward, When the Labour party came in, it took up the matter where it was left by the preceding Government, and it made the announcement that it intended to give this subsidy, but—here is where I join issue with the hon. Baronet—the Labour party never passed or introduced a line of legislation in connection with the sugar-beet industry, or voted a penny towards the subsidy. It has been left to the present Government to do both those things, and I really think the credit, if any, for the fostering of this very important new industry really lies with the Conservative party.
    I wish to return now to the White Paper, which bears on its cover the words, "Agricultural Policy." It reminds me rather of some sermons I have heard. The text is admirable, but the sermon which follows is hardly up to the mark in carrying out the text. I will read the text:
    "There is a wide measure of agreement that a national agricultural policy should aim at securing the two following objects: (1) that the land should yield its highest economic possibilities in the way of food for the nation, and (2) that it should furnish a basis of life and a reasonable livelihood to the greatest. number of people."
    I am sure there is no Member of the Committee who does not endorse that text in toto, but when we come to analyse the body of the sermon, I cannot find that there are any proposals of a sufficiently wide nature really to implement and give life to the text. I see in paragraph 4:
    "Increased production and greater employment would be secured by a large increase in the arable area, but it is clear that at the present level of corn prices no such increase could be secured."
    It goes on to say those increases could not be secured in the aggregate without one of two things, either the imposition of protective duties on imported corn, or the payment of some form of subsidy. There is one form of Protection, if you like to call it so, which might very well have been put into operation. I refer to the Barley Duty. I think it is a matter of very great regret that the Minister did not take the opportunity when he had it of putting this Barley Duty into operation. A duty on imported malting barley would not conflict with the pledges of the Government. It might be a cause of conflict with the other parties, but not necessarily with the pledges of the
    610
    Government, and it does not need the payment of any form of subsidy.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): Tha would require legislation. It would need to be put in the Finance Bill.
    Major RUGGLES-BRISE: I appreciate that. I regret that it was not put in the Finance Bill, and I am criticising the action of the Minister for not having seen that it was put in the Finance Bill. It is referred to in the White Paper issued by his Department. In my opinion there was a good opportunity of doing something to help the arable farmer in his time of present difficulty. I cannot share—I wish I could—the right hon. Gentleman's optimism. I know from my practical experience and from the fact that I am an arable farmer that the situation is very bad indeed. I am an optimist to this extent, that no one who had not hope in his soul would be such a fool as to farm at all, but I cannot share the right hon. Gentleman's optimism in thinking we are approaching a better position to-day. Then on page 3 of the White Paper I find this:
    "The Government have also examined the question from the point of view of national defence, and have come to the conclusion that no case has been made out on defence grounds which would justify the expenditure necessary to induce farmers in time of peace to produce more thin economic considerations dictate."
    This matter of national defence is one of which we must not lose sight. It is the paramount consideration, and we are entitled to ask the Government on what grounds it has come to the conclusion which it has apparently, that we can afford to run the very grave risk of an inadequate food supply. Where has that advice come from? Has it come from the Committee of Imperial Defence? Has that Committee advised the Government that, in its opinion, it can under any circumstances guarantee that it will be able to safeguard and ensure the food supply of the millions of this country either in time of war or in time of world famine? I think that is a matter upon which the. Committee should be enlightened, as to how it is the Government consider it safe to run the risk which in my view it is running. We are much too dependent on foreign supplies. Our wheat supply comes largely from foreign countries, and

    611
    if we were at war and those supplies were cut off, we should be in very great jeopardy. A failure of crop in the chief wheat-growing countries of the world would bring us to an infinitely grave position. We should not run the risk, and I think it is a great misunderstanding which may arise in the mind of the people of the country if they are led to suppose that we can afford to take this very doing it, because it does not pay!
    "None of these schemes could make the country self-supporting as regards bread-stuffs except at an impossible cost."
    That is a very gratuitous sentence. Whoever wrote it must have put it up as a ninepin for the fun of knocking it down again, because whoever has suggested that we can produce all the breadstuffs required? We cannot, but we could do very much more if it was worth while and it paid to do it, but we are not doing it, because it does not pay!
    Then I come to the question of price, and this really goes down to the bedrock of the matter. Paragraph 7 of the White Paper says:
    "In common with many other industries, agriculture has been severely hit by the fall in prices after the War, but it is weathering the storm, and there is no reason to fear that it will not adapt itself to the economic situation."
    It has certainly been severely hit, but is it equally certain that it is weathering the storm? I wish I could share that view. How is agriculture to prosper if you consider the position of prices to-day? We have the cost of living index figure at 68 points above pre-War. What is the figure at which agricultural produce is now being sold? 50 or 51 points over pre-War. There is a gap of 17 points between the cost-of-living figure and the price we are receiving for our agricultural produce. For our implements and everything we have to buy, the farmers are having to pay on the basis of plus 68, whereas for everything we sell we are only receiving 50 to 51 above pre-War. That gap of 17 points has to be bridged, and how are we going to bridge it? It is to that point that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to direct his own attention and that of his Ministry. Until we can solve that problem and lessen that gap, there is little hope that we are going to get either more production out of the land or more employment upon it.
    612
    The question of credit is mentioned in the next paragraph. While I think the Paper which was issued on the question of agricultural credit was a most admirable and lucid document, I am very disappointed that we have not heard more from the Minister about it to-day.
    Mr. GUINNESS: It would need legislation. I was called to order.
    Major RUGGLES-BRISE: I quite understand that is the reason we have heard nothing about it. The next point in the Paper is the smallholder. He has been put upon the land by legislation. Then the Legislature must riot leave him there to look after himself. He is not a natural growth in this country, but as the Legislature has thought well to put him on the land, surely it must try to do something to help him to live now he is on the land. I should like to throw out a small suggestion which will not involve legislation. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would press for an agricultural parcels Host at special rates. They have a very good system in South Africa, where 40 or 50 different commodities of agricultural produce are taken at special rates, and they also have cash on delivery. Here, if you want to send one or two pounds of agricultural produce through the post and employ the cash on delivery system as well, you will find the parcels post charges plus cash on delivery amount in many cases to the whole value of the article, whereas, in a town, if a lady asks for a pair of silk stockings cash on delivery, worth, probably, 10s., she gets them at a cost of 3d. postage and 4d. for collection. Therefore, the townsman is going to get the benefit of cash on delivery, and I think the smallholder is much more worthy of assistance in that matter.
    Paragraph 12 of the White Paper deals with timber production:
    "Large areas of land in many parts of Great Britain are more suited to the production of timber than food."
    I regret very much that the Minister missed an opportunity of doing something to encourage afforestation in the Finance Bill. The duties are going to be increased upon tractions used for the haulage of timber. We all know a tree must be removed before it has any commercial value, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way clear to protest energetically against the

    613
    increase of any duty which is going to tend to decrease the price we may receive for timber.
    When we come to the marketing of agricultural produce, I rejoice to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry is going to be a member of the Empire Marketing Board. I hope he has made up his mind as to the lines upon which he intends to proceed. I should like to put one or two suggestions to him. His purpose, I take it, will be to see that we can manage somehow to win back for ourselves our home market, that great market which we have lost to the foreigner. We want our home market of food to be for ourselves and for Empire products to the exclusion of the foreigner if and when we produce sufficient to exclude him. We are going to be in the strictest competition with him all along the line, but we are not to-day in a position to compete with him successfully. I suggest that the Minister should approach this Empire marketing question as far as it would affect home production from this end. Let us take London, greater London, with its seven millions of population, the greatest and the richest market in the world, the market which is open to the most dumping just because it is such a rich market. Everything is attracted from all over the world to London. We should concentrate our minds on re-capturing the lost London market. If it is not possible to recapture it by the individual farmer, can we not do it by welding together the production of a great area or areas by depots, by being in a position to offer in bulk, by grading our goods in such a way that we can bring them, whether to Mark Lane as breadstuffs, to Smithfield as meat or to Covent Garden as fruit—whether we cannot make some endeavour to use this money which is to be allocated to setting up in various selected spots depots where we can condition and grade and select and make ready in bulk large quantities and make a definite attack on the foreigner in our home markets.
    I believe it might be done on those lines, and as regard wheat production, it is certain that if we are really to grow more wheat, to get more land under the plough and increase the population in the countryside, we must concentrate on our chief cereal—wheat. It
    614
    is the one thing we have got to have, whatever else we do not have. I remember a remark of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). The reason I remember it is, that it is the only remark of his with which I have ever been in agreement! He said, "Imagine if there were a hungry mob clamouring at the doors of the House of Commons for food, what would it be that they would ask for? Bread." He went on to describe how he himself would go to the Members' Dining Room and come out with his pockets full of rolls. Of course, he did not say they would not be his to give away, but he was on perfectly sound ground in emphasising the point that it is bread that we have got to have, and, therefore, we must concentrate on encouraging wheat production to a greater extent. I would ask the Minister to pursue this line of thought. Imagine if in selected spots there were put up experimental stations —my own county would be a suitable one—for the grading and conditioning of wheat, where wheat could be brought in by lorries direct from the farms, immediately it was threshed, to this depot. The farmer would receive a cheque on account. The advantage would lie in this, that there the wheat could be stored for a reasonable time and it could be graded and conditioned, and instead of being offered to the miller in little parcels of 30/40 quarters, it might be offered in 1,000 quarter lots up Lo grade and up to sample. We might in that way really do something to encourage wheat growing and the re-population of the countryside.
    The Minister told us he regarded the functions of his office as being rather negative than positive in their relation to the industry of which he is in charge. I cannot accept that view at all. If you consider that agriculture is the only industry in the country which possesses a Ministry that hears its name, surely it is entitled not to be used merely as a glorified office of veterinary experts, admirable as they are—and I am sure every farmer would he most deeply grateful for the prompt and efficient way in which the importation of diseased carcases has been dealt with, and also the restriction on the import of cherries. I am not belittling the magnificent work that has been done by the Ministry in many

    615
    theatres, but if that is negative work I join issue with him on this point. I say the Minister should be in a position to frame a policy and should not rest content until he has framed a policy which will be for the benefit of agriculture on the widest scale. If people come to him with ideas, I hope he will not allow the Ministry to crush them down and not be content until they are buried in the ground and nothing further is heard of them. If there is to be destructive criticism, let there also he constructive policy, and let it come from the right hon. Gentleman himself, because I consider the position of agriculture is very serious indeed, and I do not subscribe to the optimism that has fallen from his lips. I very much regret to have to take this line, but I should not feel that I was doing my duty as a farmer to my fellow-farmers, or as Member for an agricultural constituency to my constituents, if I did not say clearly what was in my mind.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thank hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Major Ruggles-Brise) for a very interesting and very informing speech, and I am very glad that from practical acquaintance with the problems of agriculture he has done something to correct the rather anæmic optimism from which the Minister of Agriculture seems to be suffering. Until the right hon. Gentleman realises the gravity of the problem, I do not think there is very much hope of anything in the nature of a constructive policy emanating from him. I have a good deal of sympathy for the difficulties which he seems to have experienced in the construction of his speech, due entirely to the Rules of Order in this House, under which he was not able to deal with certain matters in Committee of Supply. He had evidently prepared himself to talk about the Green Book, but, as that was out of Order, he had to content himself with a description of the green fly instead. I shall do my best to keep off any discussion of subjects which will transgress the Rules of Order, but when one comes to survey the conditions of agriculture, that subject seems quite germane to the discussion of this Vote.
    The right hon. Gentleman has taken a very optimistic view of the position. I
    616
    think he is practically alone in assuming that attitude. I do not think anyone who can speak with authority upon agriculture would confirm the estimate which he has taken of the agricultural position in this country, from the point of view of the farmer, the labourer or the community. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon, who has a real knowledge of the problem, has very clearly and accurately stated the general view of all those who are intimately acquainted with the countryside and even of those who, not having a special knowledge of the countryside, are interested from the national point of view in food production in this country. The right hon. Gentleman's own Parliamentary Secretary has stated what he thinks about the seriousness of the situation. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has referred to the utterances of the Parliamentary Secretary. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman took a very different view. I could quote passage after passage from his speeches in which he pointed out the deterioration that had taken place in agriculture within recent years. There is the right hon. Gentleman's own chief, the Prime Minister, who in a speech delivered at Taunton before the last Election, said that he considered the situation in regard to agriculture was a danger to the country. He referred to the reduction in the arable acreage in the country, the very serious diminution in the rural population, the flight to other lands, the flight to the towns, and he ended by saying that he considered that to be a danger to the country, and that something would have to be done. The right hon. Gentleman now says: A danger to the country? No. It is riot so bad. Something to be done? No. Nothing is to be done, except to give them a douche of cold water. I should have thought that he, at any rate, would have provided something more stimulating than water, not so much for the acres as for the persons.
    That is not the way to treat this problem. You can treat the opinions of an Under-Secretary with disdain, and if he knows more than you do about the problem, it gives you an opportunity of showing how superior you are. You can throw over your predecessor, especially if he is thousands of miles away and is not

    617
    in a position to answer, but it is a very dangerous thing for the right hon. Gentleman to throw over his chief in a matter of this kind, and that is what he has done. The Prime Minister has never taken this optimistic view. He went out of his way to emphasise the danger of the present situation and the importance of something being done to deal with it. What is the present position? The right hon. Gentleman does not mean to say that when the Prime Minister made that very grave statement 18 months ago about depopulation and about the arable land being turned to grass, all he meant was investigations into diseases, which are undoubtedly important. That is not what he had in his mind. He meant something on a greater and more comprehensive scale for dealing with the situation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the problem, and see whether he is not misinformed in regard to the facts.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon has referred to the London market—the greatest market in the world, at our own doors, the market for a population of 8,000,000 people, within an easy compass. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to read the annual report of the Commissioners of that market for last year? If he has, then I am the more amazed at his statement that things are not so bad. That report is full of very grave figures. From this report for the London markets I find that in the year 1925, of the beef and veal which came into the market, 85·9 per cent. was imported. The right hon. Gentleman says, "You cannot grow bananas, except at great expense." But you can raise calves, and here we have 85–9 per cent. of the veal imported into the London market coming from abroad last year. The report further states, that of the mutton and lamb coming into the market, 79·5 per cent. was from abroad; of the pork, 76 per cent. came from abroad; and of the butter and cheese, 47·8 per cent. came from across the seas. What about eggs? The hon. Gentleman said that eggs are very important for the agriculturist. That is true. They do not contain all the food elements which he recommended, hut, from the point of view of profit, he was right in saying that the egg is very important to the agriculturist. Of eggs and sundries brought into the
    618
    London market, 65 per cent. came from abroad. The report goes on to say:
    "The foregoing conclusively shows how dependent the 8,000,000 people of London are upon overseas countries for their supplies of meat."
    It then gives a comparison with 1924, pointing out that there is a falling off of something like 12,613 tons on balance in the quantity which came from this country to the London market. The comparison with 1913 is still more serious, and they end up by saying:
    "This is a matter of business. Must England remain always helpless and hopeless?"
    That is a quotation from this official document—a very startling document:
    "Is she always to be dependent upon over- seas countries, ranging from a few scores to thousands of miles away, for her supplies of meat? Are Londoners content to let Things drift?"
    This document ought to be available to the right hon. Gentleman, and he ought to study it, because it relates to the market for this great city. In the face of that document, he says, "Things are not so bad," and he is good enough to suggest that we are painting gloomy pictures for the purpose of supporting recommendations of which he does not approve. It is not a question of whether those recommendations are right or not. I should be out of order in discussing the recommendations, and I do not propose to do so. The point is that we must get the facts to begin with, and when we have the facts, let the right hon. Gentleman come with his recommendations, whatever they are, to the House of Commons; but do not let him say, "Things are not so bad," and give the impression that we are turning the corner, whereas, taking the last few years and comparing them with the years before the War, we are worse off. Let him look at the figures of the quantity of meat which is bought in this country from abroad, and compare it with the quantity which was bought before the War, and he will find that we are buying very much more. I am converting the pre-War figures into the figures of to-day; otherwise it would not be a fair comparison, because, naturally, we are paying more for the same quantity of goods. Converting the pre-War figures into the figures of to-day, he will find that we are buying between

    619
    £15,000,000 and £20,000,000 more meat from abroad than we were buying before the War.
    What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Things are not so bad; we have turned the corner." I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is now present, because I have been quoting something that he said, of which I thoroughly approve—if I may respectfully say so to a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ought to have heard the speech of his Minister and have called him to order. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a very optimistic account of agriculture. He said that it was not so bad in comparison with what it used to be; in comparison with the Continent. As far as he was concerned, the only thing he had to offer to agriculturists was a douche of cold water, as he put it. Then I quoted the speech of the Prime Minister at Taunton, in which he said that the present position was full of danger to the country. He meant the agricultural position in respect to arable land and depopulation. I take the same view. He and I would not agree about the remedies, but before one comes to consider the remedies, one must, first of all, have a fair diagnosis of the conditions. The Minister of Agriculture does not think there is anything wrong; he thinks the health of agriculture is excellent. Where he has studied it I do not know. He certainly did not study it in the facts and figures of purchases and sales. He did not study it in the conditions of the farms. He did not study it in the speeches of his predecessor, and I do not think he could have spent five minutes with his own Parliamentary Secretary, otherwise he would never have delivered that speech. I hope the Prime Minister will give him a good talking to, and tell him to spend a little more time in considering the elementary facts of his office—facts which it is very vital to consider.
    I cannot go into the remedies. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Denmark and Holland! Why, these countries have just learnt from us, and they have caught us up." That is all he knows about the facts. If he had only looked at the figures given by the very gentleman to whom he referred, Sir Thomas Middleton, he would have known that they have not merely caught us up, but passed us. It
    620
    is true that their first studies were here, and, very rightly, they went to the east of England, where there is a tradition of good farming which comes from the days of Coke of Norfolk. I am now dealing with the question of production, and, as a matter of fact, they have gone beyond us. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to say that the figures I have quoted are wrong?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Sir Thomas Middle-ton's figures, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, dealt with calories and not with production.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not dealing with calories, but with cows. Let the right hon. Gentleman take the actual figures of the cattle, the pigs, the wheat, the barley and the oats, and he will find that in every case these countries—it will not do him any harm to get a few facts for the first time of the agricultural position—have gone ahead of us. He quoted Professor MacGregor, but his was a minority Report. This is from a Report made to the present Prime Minister, I believe, by the Tribunal which was appointed by Mr. Bonar Law's Government. Two out of the three members made a certain Report, to which Professor MacGregor dissented. The view he has taken has not been adopted or accepted by any great authorities on the subject. The other two members were Professor Sir William Ashley and Professor Adams, and I am quoting from the Report made by the majority of the Tribunal which was appointed by the Conservative Government in 1922. They take a stock unit for 100 acres. Great Britain, in 1922, is put at 33·1, Denmark at 39·4—
    Mr. ROY BIRD: 33·1 what?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They reduced the whole of the livestock into what they call a unit, and I am quoting the figures from the document which the Minister of Agriculture himself cited. It is not for me to explain or defend it. How they arrived at their conclusions is not for me to explain. There is the same test for every country, and reducing it into a stock unit, they put Great Britain at 33·1; Denmark at 39·4; Holland at 44·9 and Belgium at 47. I see the explanation is that they reduce cattle, sheep and pigs, into a unit, and upon that basis they

    621
    have arrived at this estimate per 100 acres. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should be amused.
    An Hon. MEMBER: I was amused to find that the right hon. Gentleman had just found out what was a stock unit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad the hon. Member, who seems to be so well informed on this subject, confirms the conclusions to which these great exports arrived, and perhaps he will do me the courtesy of listening to a few more figures on the subject. The next is crops. The average yield of wheat in Great Britain is 17·2 cwts.; Belgium, 20·7; Holland, 20·7; and Denmark, 23·8. The same thing applies to barley and oats. If the right hon. Gentleman goes to the units of livestock, or to craps, he will find that in both these cases, so far from these countries having come up to the level of Great Britain, they have surpassed us. He did not seem to know that, yet he has evidently been studying the very document from which these figures are taken. It is really impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to" guide the Committee or the agricultural industry in this country as to what should be done in order to bring it from a position in which, according to the Prime Minister, it is a danger to the country, unless he first of all masters the elemental facts of the position. When he replies, perhaps he will point out in what respect these figures are wrong.
    The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have acquired the necessary knowledge of the actual facts. He talks about interference and control. What does he mean by interference and control? As far as I can judge, his idea is that the farmer can do just what he likes with his own land or the land on which he is a tenant without interference from anybody and without control by anybody. Is that his notion? If he pursues his studies a little further, and examines a few simple agreements, even on his own property, he will find conditions there which imply interference and control in every direction; and rightly so. A farmer is not entitled to farm just as he pleases, to produce crops of any kind he wishes, or no crops at all. He is not left to his own initiative or his own disposition. There are the strictest conditions imposed in every agreement with regard to crops
    622
    and cultivation, and no one has proposed, to my knowledge, any control or interference which goes beyond the control and interference which is contained in every estate agreement at the present time. In addition to the questions into which I have already invited the right hon. Gentleman to inquire, he might also inquire into the amount of control and interference to which farmers are at present subjected or to which they have agreed. These are some of the facts which I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into.
    But I am going to press upon him a consideration which has been urged upon him earlier in the Debate, and that is, that he should inaugurate a survey in a few typical counties of the condition of agriculture. I am glad to hear that the Secretary for Scotland has undertaken a survey of this kind for one of the Scottish counties. I urged upon the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman a survey of this kind, and my appeal was listened to with a good deal of sympathy by Lord Irwin, who, I understood, had no objection to it, regarded it sympathetically, and would do what was in his power, subject no doubt to consultation with the Prime Minister and his colleagues, to arrange for it to be done. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he can get rid of the idea that things are absolutely right in agriculture, an idea which will find no support from any body of farmers or any body of landlords in this country, certainly not from the labourers, whether he will not undertake to inaugurate a survey of this nature in a few typical counties in England and Wales. He might inquire into one or two questions—the condition of the cultivation and how it compares to-day with what it was before the War.
    The figures which have been given by those who have studied the matter point to the conclusion that there is a deterioration in cultivation, that production in this country is going down. That view is supported by the fact that we are buying more produce from abroad, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman in his survey to ascertain in these typical counties whether cultivation is going down, and, if so, the reasons for it. Also I should like to ask him to include a comparison of the cultivation there with soils of the same kind in Denmark and Holland.

    623
    That is very important. The second question is whether he will examine the problem of the possibility of improvement, what could be done to increase cultivation, whether capital is forthcoming, and also if security is given to the cultivator. The Minister of Agriculture, in the course of his speech, said agriculture was suffering no more, probably less, than other industries in this country since the War. He forgets the very essential fact that they are suffering because there is no market, while agriculture is suffering with an increased market in this country, with a better market in this country, than before the War. The consumption is greater, because the population is greater, and the standard of living in many respects has gone up.
    I believe the consumption of meat has gone up as compared with pre-War years. That is true with regard to other countries in Europe. Those who took part in the War had a larger proportion of meat as their ration than that to which they had been accustomed. That was the case in France and Italy, and, to a certain extent, in regard to the population of this country, and there is a larger consumption of meat in this country than before the War. Therefore, the market in this country for agricultural produce is better than it was before the War. That is not the case in regard to other industries, and it is not a fair comparison to say cotton is suffering, wool is suffering, iron and steel are suffering. It is true, but that is because the demand has gone down. Agriculture is suffering although the demand has gone up, and it is important the right hon. Gentleman should bear that fact in mind. He seems to have overlooked it altogether. I should also like to ask him in the course of this survey to look into the question of increasing the consumption, provided more capital is forthcoming, and provided also that the same security is given to the producer in agriculture as is enjoyed by the producer in every other business in this country.
    7.0 P.M.
    The other point I want to put is that there should be an examination into the desire for small holdings in the counties. I draw a distinction between desire and demand. I know, if you go down to a county, it is said, "We only have about 100 applicants." That does not represent
    624
    in the least the desire for small holdings amongst the working population. The labourer has given up putting his name down as an applicant. He feels that he is making a fool of himself by sending in his name, because he knows other people who have sent in their names and they are still on the register; their demand is not yet satisfied. Labourers who really desire to have small holdings do not send in their names, and I think, in the course of a survey of this kind, there ought to be an attempt made to find out whether there is a desire for small holdings in these areas, and what is being done in order to satisfy that desire. The other point is the housing conditions. In the areas there ought to be an investigation into this subject, and especially in the neighbourhood of the great towns, because the housing conditions are getting worse from the fact that people in the towns are going into the country and buying those old cottages, snapping them up without taking the slightest care to find out whether there is a room or a cottage to which the dispossessed labourer can go. There is a very strong feeling on this subject among agricultural labourers within 30 or 40 miles of London, and, I think, of all the great cities. There is very strong resentment against the kind of week-ender who comes and takes up those cottages and turns the labourer out. That is a problem which, I think, ought to be investigated. I cannot suggest legislation, but it might be necessary to deal with that problem so that labourers should not be dispossessed unless there is a sufficiency of cottages.
    Mr. HURD: That policy has been announced.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know. A great many policies have been announced, and up to the present nothing has been done. That is my complaint. Another point is that the right hon. Gentleman might also include in his survey the question of rural industries. What is the position with regard to them? It is an essential part of the revival and regeneration of the countryside that, somehow or other, work should be found for the surplus population, and not only that, but work for boys and girls there, in order to keep the population on the land and near the land. In every other

    625
    country where the agricultural problem is dealt with, the question of rural industries is regarded as essential as small holdings. Anybody who has lived and been brought up in a rural area, as I have, knows perfectly well when he visits those old places and looks round he finds the little rural industries have disappeared. Factories have disappeared. Tanneries have disappeared. All sorts of little works that were providing healthy work and, what is much more important, remunerative and interesting work for the population, have disappeared. In my old village, I do not know one of them that is left. I am not sure that there is even a flour mill left there now. They have all vanished, although there is plenty of water power in the area. The question of rural industries is a vital and essential part of any agricultural problem the right hon. Gentleman may undertake.
    The only other subject of investigation I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that of the possibilities of afforestation. There are some counties where the possibilities would not be great, because the soil could be much better used. On the other hand, there are a great many counties where afforestation could be attempted on a very considerable scale, and that in itself is a question in the realm of rural industries, the provision of work for the people whose services are required when there is an exceptional demand on the part of the farmers for additional hands. The trouble at present is that if the farmer wants an additional two or three hands to assist him in moments of emergency, there is no reserve upon which to draw. Rural industries with afforestation will provide work for a short time in the year for the womenfolk especially, and then there would be a valuable surplus of labour which would help the better class of farmer, who is putting the whole of his strength of mind and capital into cultivation, to draw upon in moments of exceptional demand.
    I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not undertake, at any rate, to look into the question of having a survey of two or three typical countries? It is all very well to attack books like the Green Book, and the White Book and any other book. Those are simply attempts undoubtedly by people who are doing their best with unofficial information, to get
    626
    some sort of statement of the case which, as anybody who has had something to do with the conduct of the War knows, is vital to the health and security of this nation—food production. It is simply an attempt to get the facts the best way we can. The Government can undertake a systematic inquiry. It can employ the best men. It can do so, and the facts will have an official stamp and seal upon them, and when we have got these facts, we each can draw our own conclusions, according to our own disposition, and training and conditions. Let us get the facts, first of all. When I look through the list of the things my right hon. Friend promised, the right hon. Gentleman says, "We are considering that." Then there is another question—"That is under consideration." Then if there is something very important he says, "That is receiving special consideration." All great artists are in the habit of painting pictures of themselves in the course of their career, and the right hon. Gentleman has painted himself with his finger on his brow considering deeply the problems of agriculture, "sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought," trying to consider, and to consider specially, and to consider thoroughly, with the frown of thought on his brow. But it is about time that he should first of all master the facts. When he has done that, I hope he will come forward with some policy that will put agriculture in a better position.
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: We have listened to a very interesting, and, in many ways, very remarkable speech, because little bits of it might have been delivered by a. great variety of politicians, though one or two sentences might very well have come from an old-fashioned Tory squire.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Why not?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: A quite substantial section of it suggests the conversion of the right hon. Gentleman to the policy which I always hanker after, and know we shall never obtain in our time, and that is agricultural protection. The one appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made, which I venture to support as far as my support may be of any value, is the appeal for the survey of some kind. My motive, perhaps, differs from the right hon. Gentleman's

    627
    but I agree with him and everyone else who is advocating an agricultural survey of some kind, that we are lacking in many items of essential information. The more information we get, the better able this party or any other party will be to deal with the information. Opinions as to the information we are likely to get, of course, differ. Personally, I believe if we got complete information, we should get such information as would destroy the structure of the right hon. Gentleman's own proposals. I join with him in acknowledging the desirability of information as complete as we can get, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to make a start, at all events, in a survey of this kind.
    There is one matter, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned towards the end of his speech, which is of particular interest to me, and that is afforestation. The proposal he recommended with regard to the establishment of forest holdings is the policy which has already been definitely adopted by the present Forestry Commissioners, and I understand is working exceedingly well. There is one small holding to be set up for, approximately, 180 acres of forest. The right hon. Gentleman, early in his speech, when he was criticising the Minister of Agriculture, said that he did not suppose there was anyone who would agree with the Minister's anæmic optimism. At the risk of being considered an anæmic optimist, I venture to say I agree not with what the right hon. Gentleman pretends my hon. Friend said, but with what he did say, and that is this, that, bad as things have been, and admittedly bad as they still are, be sees an indication that we have turned a corner. I think so, too. From the national point of view—he was discussing the economic point of view of the English farmer—I have great misgivings as to the low amount of our food supplies which are produced at home, and the many indirect effects on national physique and a score of other matters. Looking at it purely from the point of view of the economic position of the farmer, it is not quite so bad as it was a year or two ago. That is what my right hon. Friend was discussing, and I agree with him there. The national point of view, I think, is very bad. I
    628
    very much deprecate the use which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) makes of figures which tend to suggest that farming on the Continent of Europe is almost universally, or at least generally, better than farming in England. I do not agree with that at all. We have, of course, our bad farmers, like every other country has, but I believe the better type of English farmer is the best type of farmer the world has seen. There are far more of them than the right hon. Gentleman's speeches would lead us to believe.
    Mr. A. MacLAREN: They all come from Scotland.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: A good many of them come from Scotland, but we have a, good few in England, too. What are the remedies suggested for the lack of production? There are many minor remedies in regard to which all parties are taking their share, such as the attempt to improve marketing, and other matters of that kind, but it all boils down to this—that you must improve the relation of price to cost somehow or other if you are going to improve the position of the English farmer and increase the production of home-grown food. That is apart from all these smaller matters like marketing and co-operation. I wish to goodness the English farmer would co-operate.
    Mr. MacLAREN: He never will.
    Mr. HARDIE: Too much conservatism.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I do not know whether it is conservatism or not.
    Mr. HARDIE: Too "stick-in-the-mud."
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: At all events, his nature does not tend to bring him easily into co-operative movements. Before I leave these minor matters, I wish to refer to the question of sugar beet. A great deal has been said about it, but it has not once been referred to in this Debate in what I consider to be its true relation to agriculture. The justification for the efforts which every party has made to assist the establishment of the sugar-beet industry is not the production of sugar, but the introduction of a profitable cleaning crop in the arable

    629
    rotation. It is a wheat question, and not a sugar question. There is no doubt in my mind that in any arable district where sugar beet is successfully established, quite apart from the increased yield on the annual cost per acre which experience leads one to expect, the introduction of a profitable cleaning crop into the rotation is going to knock an appreciable number of shillings off the price at which it pays the farmer to market his wheat. You cannot grow wheat without cleaning your land, and it is that necessity which has produced the various rotations—the Norfolk rotation, and so forth—and the greatest handicap the English farmer has to face in producing wheat, as against the prairie farmer who is producing it on alluvial soil, is the urgent necessity of cleaning his wheat land every three, four or five years.
    In the past we had been accustomed to clean land by growing such crops as swedes or mangolds. They have to be calculated in the farmer's profit and loss account not by market value, because there is no general market for them, but in the terms of the hypothetical value of meat. The farmer has to estimate what, in six months' time, swedes and mangolds are going to bring him in in the price of beef or mutton. You will always find that when calculated in that way—the only true way to make the calculation—there is a loss on your cleaning crop, and that loss has to be borne by wheat, barley, or oats, as the case may be. It is with wheat that we are concerned at the moment, and the question of the cleaning crop has a definite, and pressing effect on the wheat problem. Make a change, and introduce an effective cleaning crop which not only places no burden on wheat, but which actually makes a profit in itself, and you alter the whole profit and loss account as regards wheat. I believe we shall find, as years go on, that the introduction of this industry—in the credit for which, I think, every party is entitled to claim a share—will prove the biggest thing that could possibly have been carried out, short of agricultural protection on a large scale, to secure the maintenance of wheat acreage. I am not without hope that it may even lead to a future increase in the wheat acreage, and I am certain it will do a good deal
    630
    to maintain many acres under the plough which would otherwise go out of cultivation. These points, although in the aggregate they amount to a great deal, are, when taken separately, minor matters with regard to the great question of increased agricultural production.
    I turn to the remedies which the different parties have proposed or rejected. The electors have decided that Protection and a general subsidy is out of the question, and each party, in turn, has found itself in the difficulty of having to propose a major measure to deal with the question. The two parties opposite, lacking something better to put forward, have entered into a conspiracy, or have arrived by separate roads at the same conclusion, that the thing to do is to damn the landowners. They agree to blame him for all the trouble, and to call him all sorts of names. They refer to insecurity of tenure, and other things, but it all comes to this—that the only major remedy suggested by either of the parties opposite is the elimination, sudden or gradual, of the private ownership of agricultural land. The late Minister of Agriculture referred to insecurity of tenure as being in his view one of the great impediments to the improvement of cultivation. The arguments with which he followed up that reference were all arguments in favour of occupying ownership. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) were equally in support of occupying ownership as opposed to tenancy.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Why?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I think I am not misquoting the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Agriculture when say that his argument was that you should have security of tenure, and have the man working his own land. Personally, I want to see an increase in occupying ownership, and I am delighted to see that there is a great increase in occupying ownership. The number of farmers who own the land they farm in England and Wales has doubled since the War. I think that is a thoroughly good movement, not only as regards the security of the country, but as regards the question of production, because the man who owns his land has every inducement and

    631
    incentive to get the best he can out of it, and to treat it as well as he can. The danger is that he may not have adequate capital to carry out the proper obligations resting on one who is the owner as well as the occupier of a farm. I hope that the credit scheme which is being discussed—I am very disappointed that we have not yet seen more of it—will go a long way towards removing that danger; but, given sufficient working capital, I believe a great increase in occupying ownership will go a long way towards ensuring that the country will get the best which the land can give.
    But I know quite well that neither of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite was really arguing in favour of an extension of occupying ownership. Their arguments were intended, not in support of occupying ownership, but in condemnation of the continuance of private ownership of land. I want to look into that question for a moment. They both say, in their publications and utterances, that they want to be fair, and that they do not advocate confiscation—though if the proposals of their parties be carefully analysed confiscatory elements are to be found in bath. Still, they assert there would be compensation, and compensation, I gather, would mean the fair market value. Now land has an element of value other than its return in net rent. If we had all the information about the agricultural land which is still subject to tenancy in this country, we should find that the net rental received by the owner from the tenant is, I think, less than 1½ per cent. and certainly less than 2 per cent. upon the ordinary market value of that land and the buildings upon it. The reason is two-fold. In the first place, there is this element of value which may be concerned with sentiment, amenity, or sport or what you like, but which is an element of value other than economic.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Competitive value.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: There is competitive value to some extent and in some cases, but even where there is no competitive value, there is an element of value other than the purely economic. That element of value only exists for the personal owner—the individual—and it is
    632
    immediately destroyed if the State becomes the owner operating the functions of ownership through officials.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member is now getting into the question of Nationalisation, which I do not think would be in order in this Debate.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I am sorry if I have exceeded the limits of Order, but I was rather drawn on to the subject by the arguments of others. However, I will leave that question severely alone. Whatever may be the attractions of other systems, you do by the present system maintain an clement of value which other systems would destroy, an element of value which is important not only to the individual but to the community as well. You maintain that incentive to improve cultivation and increase production which you only get when the individual who is cultivating the land can say—if perhaps it is not good land, or if times are not prosperous—
    "A poor thing, but mine own."
    Mr. RILEY: I do not propose to enter into the question of the relative productivity of agricultural land in this country as compared with other countries, nor do I desire to embark upon a discussion of what has been called damning the landlord, but I want to invite attention to an aspect of the problem upon which apparently all parties are agreed. I refer to the policy, to which we are all attached, at least by profession, of utilising all the powers of the Ministry to give the widest opportunity to labour to settle down upon the land, particularly in the form of small holdings and I want to call attention to one or two facts which have come out in recent reports dealing with the subject. First of all, I want to remind the Minister of the pronouncement of his own Government, which has a very direct bearing upon the neglect of the Government in implementing their professed policy in regard to small holdings. In the White Paper it is stated that there are two conditions which are necessary to improve agriculture in this country, namely:
    "(1) That the land should yield its highest economic possibilities in the way of food for the nation, and
    (2) That it should furnish a basis of life and a reasonable livelihood to the greatest number of people."

    633
    I submit that if there is one form of agriculture which fulfils those conditions more than another, it is that of small holdings, which yield the "highest economic possibilities in the way of food for the nation," and which "furnish a basis of life and a reasonable livelihood to the greatest number of people."
    I see that the Minister is not present at the moment, but may I call the attention of his Department and of this Committee to a very remarkable example of the extent to which the promotion of small holdings has increased the number of people living on the land? There was issued last week the 14th Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, in which there are given the results of certain small holdings schemes which have been promoted since 1919. The first scheme referred to is one which comprises seven arable farms, and at the time when they were taken over for small holdings the total population maintained on them was 294; in 1925, there were 682 people living on the same land. Take another scheme. Here is a case of four pastoral farms, which, before they were taken over for small holdings, maintained 97 people, but which in 1925, after settlement, maintained 545 people. Therefore, I submit that there is a method of realising the object of the land maintaining the largest possible population. Along with my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Agriculture, some few weeks ago I visited a small holdings colony in Essex, and there I learned that on land which previously to being taken over for small holdings comprised two farms, approximately 500 acres, and maintained two farmers' families, there are now settled 60 families, with 60 houses. I submit, therefore, that the Ministry and the country have every justification for pressing forward as fast as possible this method of small holdings.
    May I put this point to those who object to the scheme, for some reason or other? Strange to say, their objections are snore often stated in private than in public. The Ministry, in the White Paper to which I have referred, say there is now an opportunity for an extension of small holdings, but one hears criticisms that there have been a great many failures. I will give a fact or two from the Report of the West Riding County Council on small holdings both
    634
    pre-War and post-War. On page 10 of that Report, there occur these startling figures:
    "The following shows the number of holdings created, and up to the present time the failures in each case: Ordinary cases: Tenants, 446; failures, 5; percentage, 1·1."
    They go on to say that in the case of the self-supporting holdings created before 1919 the percentage of failures on the West Riding was only seven-tenths per cent., or less than one in a hundred. Of course, we own that after the War conditions there were special difficulties with which to contend, and the Act of 1919 was designed to deal with the needs and requirements of ex-service men, not of persons who had been trained in agriculture, but of men broken in the War, and the special care of the nation. That material was taken, but in spite of that fact, I see that the average failures from 1919 for the whole country work out at only 7 per cent. These are very striking figures, and I submit that there is every possible justification for going forward with this policy. May I also call attention to the Report of the Ministry for 1919 to 1924, where they give the achieved results of small holdings in various districts. Here is a. ease from Cambridge, of two brothers, both ex-service men, with a holding of 43 acres, 40 acres arable, with house and buildings, at Michaelmas, 1918. Their capital was supplemented by a loan of £300, the of which has been repaid. They specialise in pigs and have been so successful that recently they have been able to take a further 20 acres of land. I will give a second case, this time from Devonshire, of an ex-service man trained under the Ministry's scheme, who took a four-acre holding with house and buildings, at Michaelmas, 1922, and who is stated to be probably the most successful poultry farmer on the Council's estate, having sold in the last year 300 chicken and 50,000 eggs, practically all going to Birmingham and the Midlands. I admit that there have been failures, but there are the facts of achieved experience, and I submit that with these facts before us, and the necessities of the country, there is every reason for the Government not simply to put into a White Paper their intention to do something about small holdings, but to sit down and do it.
    We were told by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman last year, and

    635
    it has been stated this afternoon, that under the Acts of 1908 to 1914 some 15,000 people were settled in small holdings. From 1919 up to the present time something like 17,000 or 18,000 have been settled, making a total of roughly 33,000, and representing a population of about 130,000. It ought to have been 500,000, and in that case the benefit to the country would have been proportionate. It is all very well to say that there is plenty of room in the Colonies and Dominions for men out of work and that they will furnish an increased market for our goods, but I submit that they will furnish far better markets if settled on English land than even in Australia. They will be nearer to our doors and more closely associated with us in regard to the exchange of goods and purchasing power, and I submit that it will be to the advantage of the nation in every possible sense, especially in view of the persistently critical condition of unemployment, that this policy, upon which we all agree, should be pursued without any kind of hesitation. We may be told that small holdings are a matter of great expense and that the question must be approached very carefully and with due regard to the national resources. I submit that it would be far more rational for any Government in this country to spend a few million pounds, if it were only £30,000,000, on well-organised schemes of small holdings, with men adequately trained before being put on to the holdings, than to go on with the method which is now being pursued, with thousands and tens of thousands of men out of work and receiving money for no exchange of labour of any kind whatever.
    I have here a statement of the money which, during the last three years, we have paid from the State for unemployment benefit. In the insurance year 1922–23, the contributions by the employers amounted to £18,110,000, by the work-people £15,900,000, and by the Exchequer £12,170,000. In 1923–24, the respective contributions under these three heads were £19,560,000, £17,360,000 and £13,180,000. For the year 1924–25 the figures respectively were £19,580,000, £17,340,000 and £13,150,000. Within three years the Exchequer has contributed towards unemployment benefit, has paid
    636
    for no work, no less than £38,500,000 of the taxpayers' money, while the total amount of unemployment benefit amounts to over £146,000,000. Criticism of the policy the Government are pursuing is because it involves the nation in all this money, which is simply lost. I submit that this is a most insane policy. The Government have no courage or the proper spirit in this matter. I appeal to the Minister, and I appeal to the Prime Minister, really to take a broad-minded view of the situation, and to work out a scheme which would tend in a more productive direction.
    I must not overstep the mark, and will endeavour to keep in Order, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether it is not possible to visualise the situation? Consider the fact that that prevailing, mining situation has accentuated, and, possibly, will further accentuate matters, many miners having practically no chance of work at all. There were 200,000 out before the. War, and since the pits have closed down the number of unemployed has swollen. Could not the Government see the need of taking a broad view, a broad survey, and planning land settlement that would offer a chance to men who cannot get work in their own trades to become trained and settled on the land, and so become producers, and so provide and make markets?
    Sir ROBERT THOMAS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has yet to reply in the short time before us, so, on behalf of my party on this side of the House, I am under the very painful necessity of moving to reduce the Vote as a protest against the ineffective speech to which we have listened from him. I represent an agricultural constituency. I am painfully conscious of the terrible conditions under which the farmers and the agricultural labourers are obliged to exist to-day. It is, in my judgment, and in the judgment of those associated with me, no time for the Minister to come to the House without any proposals of a tangible kind to relieve the terrible conditions existing. Having regard to that, I beg to move the reduction.
    Mr. LAMB: The hon. Gentleman has just spoken and moved the reduction of the Vote by way of protest. It would not appear that he has the very strong

    637
    support of his own party in the protest, or that it is heavily hacked, judging by the appearance of the benches opposite. He said that he did not want to stand in the way of the Minister replying. Neither do I. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, and prevent the Minister from replying to the various questions that have been put to him by the various speakers. Here again, however, I should like to observe, that although there has been a great tendency to ask for information, there does not appear to be the same tendency to hear what the explanations are. Whether the great incentive has been to make speeches on the matter, or really to take an interest and listen to the Minister, I shall leave to others to say.
    My object in rising was primarily to express the appreciation which organised agriculture has of the action which the Minister has already taken in a few particular eases. I refer to the embargo which took place upon the importation of meat carcases from the Continent. The right hon. Gentleman acted not only with courage—because it did require courage—but he acted with promptitude. I think we shall all agree, when the question of the importation of disease either among the herds or the population of this country is concerned, promptitude in action in excluding the possibility of its introduction is a very great item. Not only was it so in regard to that, but there was the other case. That was the embargo placed upon the importation of cherries from abroad, and with them the importation of the cherry fruit fly. It might be thought that this is not a very big item. I can, however, assure the House that the fruit-growers of this country viewed with very great concern the possibility—the probability—which turned out to be a certainty, of the importation of this cherry fruit fly by the importation of cherries. I do wish to express, therefore, very sincerely the appreciation which organised agriculture has of these particular occasions. When the right hon. Gentleman has had to face the criticism he has had to face, I think it is only just that if agricultural Members can show their appreciation of the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture, they should do it.
    There was one other thing which the right hon. Gentleman said, which myself, and I know agriculturists, will appreciate very strongly. He expressed
    638
    his aversion to increasing the inspectorate. If there is one thing the farmer does want, it is the opportunity to farm his land by what he himself knows—and he is the only person who can know—is the best method in which the land can be farmed. Agriculture and farming are distinctively individualistic operations as we have claimed for a long time. We still maintain it. We have proof of it, because during the War the Government stepped in, took big tracts of land, set up committees, and the land was farmed very largely by the same men who made a success of it in an individualist capacity. In a collective capacity, working under a committee, the farming of the land by the committee was not very successful. The Government could not make it a success. The Co-operation Societies took large tracts of lands in the country, and they have shown very good sense later in trying to get rid of it. Agriculture and farming are individualist operations which do not benefit by undue and unnecessary control; therefore, it is a very great satisfaction to hear the Minister say what he does about not increasing the number of inspectors.
    Reference has been made to the capacity of the land of this country for production. Remarks have been made which are largely, unfortunately, to the detriment, or they are suggested to the detriment, of the capacity of the farmers of this country. I stand here, and without fear of being contradicted, assert that the farmers of this land can and do produce equal to the farmers in any other country. We have undoubtedly amongst us some of those men who are not farming as they ought, or perhaps as they would; but I would like to ask if there is no other industry of which that can be said? The farmer is under this disability: his operations are open to the whole world. On the other hand, you can walk down any street and all you can see of the business capacity and operations of those who are employed in the industry is seen through the shop window. You do not know what is going on behind the window. A farm is a very different thing. The farmer's operations are open to his neighbours. He gets any amount of criticism, far more, perhaps, than he deserves, or desires, or is inclined to take, and in many cases he is criticised adversely.

    639
    The suggestion is that per acre of land abroad the production is more than in this country. As a matter of fact, some of the figures which Sir Thomas Middleton gave some time ago proved that in Germany the amount of food produced was greater than in this country. It was, however, so much per hundred acres, and not so much per acre. The reason for this was simply that there was a greater proportion of land in Germany under arable cultivation than under grass. We all know that there is a greater bulk of food produced on arable land than from grass land. That is why the comparative statement is suggested, that very possibly the foreign country was producing more than we, but on the individual acre we are producing a greater amount. It is quite true to say that the arable area is decreasing. No one deplores that more than I do. It is not the fault of the Government. It is not the fault of the Department of Agriculture. It is really—I will not say the fault—but in consequence of the decision of the community as a whole—they have at elections made it quite clear—that they will not have the only means by which cultivation in this country of certain land can be made a success. That remedy, for the time being, is ruled out.
    8.0 P.M.
    After all, agriculture is and must be an economic question. The fact of the matter is that when it pays the producer to produce, he will do so. Farming in this country was never so good as during the years of the War. Despite the fact that there was a shortage of labour at that time, farms were in a better condition, and actually better looked after and more food was produced simply because it was a paying proposition. We have been deploring the fact that it has not been so of late, but that requires some qualification, because there are more men employed in agriculture to-day than there were before the War. Even with that, we get a reduced arable acreage. Here I take it there is some credit which ought to be given to the agriculturists themselves, because they are continually employing the same or a greater number of men on a lesser arable area, showing that there is a disinclination on the part of the individual farmer to part with his men, and that he tries to retain them to the last. There
    640
    should also be taken into consideration the fact that not only does he do that, but he farms perhaps more intensely the land still continued in occupation. It is quite true that some of the poorer class of arable land has gone out of cultivation, and probably will have to go. It is a sad thing to say, but it probably will have to go because, after all, the product of arable cultivation receives more competition from abroad than the grassland, and we find it absolutely impossible, on our poorer land, to compete with the climatic conditions and labour conditions abroad. We produce more per acre than they do, but their extra number of acres and lower cost of production counterbalances the extra amount which we produce per acre.
    I will not go on because, as I said before, I do not wish to stand between the Minister and the reply which we hope he will give us, and I will conclude by saying very briefly but very genuinely, how much we appreciate the action he has taken.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am grateful to the hon. Member for cutting short his remarks because, as the Committee is aware, there is an arrangement by which this Debate should be brought to a conclusion at 8.15. I have already trespassed so long on the Committee's patience, but I want to answer a few of the points which have been raised in debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), from his detailed knowledge of farming, asked for information on a good many detailed points. He referred to the question of arable stock raising. Since he left the Ministry we have changed the system of that inquiry and it is now under the control of the Institute of Agricultural Economics at Oxford. We are awaiting their first annual report. but it is safe to say that their experiments have already proved of value as to certain methods of cropping—their suitability or otherwise to smallholders and other farmers, and even where the results were negative, there is no doubt we shall get considerable value from the mere fact that the experiments have been tried and failed, and from the experience so gained.
    The right hon. Gentleman further asked what we were going to do about marketing, especially in regard to eggs. In all these marketing reforms the initiative

    641
    must come from the industry concerned. The egg problem is being carefully considered by the National Farmers' Union and the National Poultry Council, and we shall most readily co-operate and take any necessary action which may be thought useful for the improving of British production.
    The right hon. Gentleman then asked about the production of yeoman wheat. Last season was the first time it appeared on the British market. Three thousand quarters were then made available, and they have been sown and the crops will he harvested this year. It is, I fear, impossible for some years to come, that the full demand for this most valuable new variety will be satisfied.
    The right hon. Gentleman also asked about credits. I should naturally not be in order in dealing with the proposal in detail, but as the matter has been raised I can assure the House we have every intention of going on with our proposals. We are negotiating with the banks as to long-term credits, and we are waiting for the considered opinion of the National Farmers Union as to the proposals which have been put forward for a chattel mortgage and the form it should take. I confess that when this proposal was first put forward I did not realise how much dislocation might be caused or, at all events, feared by farmers, owing to the possibility of the disturbance of the present arrangements with merchants and others who now supply credit. It is quite obvious that a matter of this kind is not to he embarked upon hastily before it is established that the industry feels the proposals will be of value. The present position is that the National Farmers' Union are taking steps to obtain the opinions of their branches throughout the country, and if that is favourable we will certainly ask the House to allow this proposal to be put on the Statute Book.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asked what we were going to do about the national survey of agriculture. As he is no doubt aware, we are preparing a Report which will embody the results of the recent census of agricultural production. This will give us a great mass of information to supplement that in our possession every year in the form of the agricultural returns, and we have also taken steps by means of the 300 crop reporters,
    642
    who are available throughout the country, to get a certain amount of special information. We shall in this Report include statistics showing the present position and development in the acreage under cultivation in this country, the production and yield, the live stock, the amount of labour employed, and the movement of prices. We hope also to give valuable figures as to the capital invested.
    We are making inquiries as to the use of land which does not appear in the agricultural returns, and we are inquiring how far it includes areas which are suitable for cultivation. We are further pursuing inquiries as to the different classes of holdings and trying to get definite information as to the number included in the returns which are only partially used for agriculture and which cannot be looked upon as commercial undertakings. We shall, of course, give the House all the definitely ascertained facts which we can obtain. But when you get beyond facts into the realm of opinion, as to whether certain areas are underfarmed or overfarmed—when you get into these matters which cannot be judged merely on production or simply by the compilation of statistics, and where you have to take into account the very complicated economic problem of the farmers' profit and loss—it is not altogether easy to compile statistics which will be convincing or satisfying to any section of opinion. I will, however, most certainly examine the possibility of picking out a few counties, as has been suggested today, and will explore the advantage of making a descriptive survey, and if I find we can embody such information in the Report, we shall do so.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is no longer here, but he was rather indignant at my quoting authorities to rebut certain reckless statements which he had made and which I quoted. The authorities and figures I gave stand for themselves, but in his speech he again selected further instances and tried to argue as to the general state of agriculture and the general inefficiency of British farmers, from specially picked instances. He took the ease of the London meat trade, and he assumed with great confidence that I had not read the Report. I do not

    643
    know if he has read it himself; anyhow, I have heard a good deal about the London meat trade in the last week or two, and even if the right hon. Gentleman did read that Report, I do not suppose he has spent as much time on the conditions of the London meat trade as I have done in connection with the meat embargo. It is a singularly unfair test of the state of the market for British meat, for London stands quite alone in this country in its very high proportion of foreign meat consumed, and it is entirely misleading to take one isolated market and argue from it as to the condition of the meat trade, and as to whether British agriculture and the production of livestock is or is not efficient. But as he made this challenge, let me give the figures of the increase in British livestock.
    Our population has increased, and the consumption of London is colossal, but it surely cannot be suggested that it is at all relevant to consider the figures in London unless you consider the figures throughout the country and the improvement which is taking place in our production. I have the figures here for England and Wales for the period 1920 to 1925. Dairy cattle in that period had increased in every single year without a setback, and they had increased in that period by 361,000. The total of our cattle has also increased every year, without a single drop in the numbers. The number has gone up in the period mentioned by 617,000. The total of our sheep has fluctuated, but the number has risen in the same period by more than 2,500,000. The pig population, which is the most fluctuating of all, has also increased by 650,000.
    The right hon. Gentleman is always devoting himself to blackening the British record as compared with the record of our foreign competitors, but it is useless for
    him in his criticisms to pretend that what we mean by our arguments is that we live under a perfect system in this country. I have never suggested it, and I do not think anybody has suggested it. What I do say is that though, no doubt, there are bad fanners, though agriculture, like every other industry, must vary according to the efficiency of those who conduct it, yet taking it as a whole, it is just as well served by those engaged in it as is any other industry or profession. Of course it can be improved, and I should be the last to deny it, but I have been chiefly concerned to show, not from my own small knowledge, but on the authority of Professor Macgregor and other statisticians, that we do not compare unfavourably with other foreign countries. The figures which are so popular with the right hon. Gentleman are misleading, and it, is also misleading for him to tell the Committte that Professor Macgregor's figures of the corrected Census of Production are only those of a minority, because it is definitely stated on page 5 that this is not a question of a majority or a minority Report. These are the words:
    "The final reports should be regarded as largely supplemental one to another, each report treating certain aspects of the problem more fully than the other."
    It really is not convincing for the right hon. Gentleman to taunt us with doing nothing to help the farmers. We are out to try to make it easier for them to make profits, and we can fairly say that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, far from helping to increase the margin between the expenses and the receipts of British farmers, would only aggravate their problem.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £759,028, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 302.]

    AYES.

    [8.20 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Batey, Joseph

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Duncan, C.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Broad, F. A.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Bromley, J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Gosling. Harry

    Kelly, W. T.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lansbury, George

    Cluse, W. S.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and colne)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Connolly, M.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lawson, John James

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Lee, F.

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Lowth, T.

    Lunn, William

    Sexton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J,R.(Aberavon)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Viant, S. P.

    Mackinder, W.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Oliver, George Harold

    Smlille, Robert

    Welsh, J. C.

    Palin, John Henry

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Whiteley, W.

    Paling, W.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Snell, Harry

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Potts, John S.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Riley, Ben

    Sutton, J. E.

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Taylor, R. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert

    Scurr, John

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Hutchison.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Hanbury, C.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Apsiey, Lord

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Peering, Sir William George

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Harland, A.

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Atkinson, C.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Pilcher, G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Ralne, W.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ramsden, E.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Berry, Sir George

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Hill's, Major John Waller

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)

    Rye, F. G.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hudson, Capt. A, U. M. (Hackney, N)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Braun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'I'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Savery, S. S.

    Brown, Maj. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newby)

    Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unlv.,Belist)

    Barton, Colonel H. W.

    Illffe, Sir Edward M.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Campbell, E T.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Christie, J. A.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Couper, J. B.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

    Courtauld, Major J. S

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Looker, Herbert William

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Laugher, L.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Maclntyre I.

    Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macmillan Captain H.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Elveden, Viscount

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Everard, Lindsay

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wells, S. R.

    Fielden, E; B.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Finburgh, S.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Marrlott, Sir J. A. R.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Forrest, W.

    Meller, R. J.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Merriman. F. B.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Wilson, A. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Grotrlan, H, Brent

    Neville, R. J.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Nicholson, O (Westminster)

    Major Cope and Captain Viscount

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Oakley, T.

    Curzon.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £433,111, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, Loans to Co-operative Societies, and certain Grants-in-Aid." — [Note: £150,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    By leave of the Committee I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to dot some of the i's and cross some of the t's in the speech which was made by the Secretary for Scotland on a previous occasion. I have devoted an hour or two with great pleasure and some profit to the remarks made on that occasion by the Secretary for Scotland. In the first place, I would like to say how much we are in agreement with him on some of his main points. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I emphasise one or two of the points to which he alluded in his speech. He said early on in his remarks that
    "Every time one surveys the problem one sees the enormous advantage of having what I would call a stepping-stone from the small holding to the medium holding, and from the medium holding to the larger holding"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1926; col. 2559, Vol. 196.]
    I agree with that statement. I think the Secretary for Scotland should remember that if he wishes to build up agriculture on a suitable basis it must be a very broad basis of small holdings. You gradually grow from your small holdings to your large farm, and of course you want a very broad basis of small holdings to support that system. The figures from Denmark are very instructive. The last figures were published in 1919, and since then the small holdings under 25 acres have increased to 109,145, 25 to 37 acres to 25,494 out of a total of 205,929, which gives 120 per cent. of smallholders as the basis of the agricultural pyramid in Denmark. I do not think it is possible to secure the best return from the land and the greatest settlement on the land unless you set before yourselves the problem of increasing the small holdings and making
    648
    them the basis of your pyramid. Further on in his speech, the Secretary for Scotland said:
    "I say that my policy in regard to small holding settlements is to endeavour to see that those settlements are put in places where the individuals concerned have the greatest hope of real advantage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1926; col. 2560; Vol. 196.]
    With those sentiments I agree entirely. Some of the post-War settlements made in Scotland have not been very successful. I should like for a moment to quote a case which came under my own eyes in my constituency, where things are not all that they should be. I give as an instance the case of a farmer in Skaw who had a sheep farm. He had a small holding which was subsequently enlarged. In the old days the sheep could be driven up to the farm, which was situated at the top of a hill, and they could be driven down, but now that the holding has been broken up into small holdings there is no road by which this can be done. I am afraid the settlement has been left in the position of what I would call an unfinished piece of work on the part of the Board of Agriculture, because it is evident to everyone that, on a settlement of small holdings so placed, people cannot either cart stuff in or out of their holdings, which puts them at a very great disadvantage. I only quote that as an instance of accidents that have happened in settlement.
    I hope the Committee will forgive me for constantly referring to Denmark, but, after all, it is one of the leading agricultural countries, and it is a country the methods of which I have spent no little time in studying. Where a country has shown us the way, I think we cannot do better than follow it, if it is a good way. It is an old saying that Fas est ab hoste doceri. If we can learn anything from the Danes, we should do so, and try, if possible, td do better than they. They have laid it down as an axiom in land settlement that every holding should be on an economic basis. The history of land settlement in that country is rather interesting. It began in a very small way, by the giving of grants of half an acre, an acre, or an acre and a half, to agricultural labourers for gardens, with the idea that thereby they would be encouraged to remain on the land, that their lot would be made better, and that a

    649
    policy of that sort would tend to keep the people in the country. In the course of years, however, the Danes learned by experience that that is not the way to do it, but that the real and only way in which success can be hoped for is by making a holding which will economically support a man and his family. I think that that is a line that we should follow in this country, and that whenever we are engaged in settling people on the land, we should regard, not only the size of the holding, but its productivity, and assure ourselves that it is such a holding that a man and his family can live and support themselves comfortably upon it.
    The Secretary for Scotland further went on to say that this policy of small holdings
    "is not really altogether an economic policy except from the point of view that we may achieve the settlement of groups of men in certain districts who may raise a considerable amount of food, and that you have the very great advantage of keeping men and their families upon the land—a problem that no one in Scotland, certainly no one who for the time being holds my office, can neglect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1925 col. 2561, Vol. 196.]
    Surely, however, it is an economic policy. If the holding is an economic holding, what better goal can we put before our eyes than increasing the number of people living upon the land, and increasing the productivity of the land? I must confess I do not quite understand what the Secretary for Scotland means when he says it is not altogether an economic policy. I rather fancy he still has a hankering after the large farm. We all know what the large farm can do and has done in Scotland, but surely, if we really desire to stop rural depopulation in Scotland, and to increase the productivity of the land, we must have a large, whole-hearted determination to increase land settlement, to increase the number of small holdings, and to increase the number of people on the laud. Although the Secretary for Scotland has said that he is, to a certain extent, in favour of that policy, I am sorry to see that he goes on to qualify it by saying that it is not altogether an economic policy, and I should like to hear from him some fuller explanation of what he means by that statement.
    I am going to make a suggestion which at first sight may perhaps appear to Members of the Committee to be a rather
    650
    unusual one, but I think that, when it is looked at closely, it will be found to be one that has some merit behind it, and I would commend it to the Secretary for Scotland. We all know that a short time ago it was decided to set aside a large sum of money—£1,000,000—for the purpose of marketing Empire produce. When the idea of marketing Empire produce had been allowed to filter down to the minds of the people, the agriculturists in this country thought to themselves, "If the Government are going to spend this large sum on marketing Empire produce, it is going to bring it into competition with the produce of our own farms in this country. Where do we come in?" As the result of that, the Government decided to put on the Committee a representative of British agriculture, and, as the money was to be devoted to the purpose of marketing Empire produce, it was not only to be the marketing of the produce of the Dominions, but the marketing also of the produce of Great Britain. If we really want to make land settlement a success, then, as I was saying the other night, though I do not want to repeat myself now, we cannot make it a real success without co-operation, and the suggestion I would make is this: Let us in Scotland get hold of as much of that money as we can, and start a real, genuine propaganda campaign on behalf of co-operation. If we can get farmers in Scotland really to take up co-operation, it is going to mean a great deal more to them than any £1,000,000 that can be given by the Government for marketing Dominion produce.
    I referred on the last occasion to the very great importance of co-operation for, the success of land settlement, and I would seriously put it to the Secretary for Scotland that, if that policy is to succeed, he must have co-operation. In order to get farmers in Scotland to co-operate, you have to teach them, and in order to teach them to co-operate, to teach them the advantages and value of co-operation in marketing their goods—because it is in marketing goods that we fail at the present time—we shall have to spend money. Here is this money, provided for the improvement of the marketing of Empire produce. Scotland is part of the Empire, and I most earnestly suggest to the Secretary for

    651
    Scotland that as large a portion of this money as we can get hold of for Scotland should be utilised in a great campaign for co-operation. We cannot do it by small efforts; it must be done by a great, big effort. The Government must put its weight into it, must make up its mind that it wants it, and then go for it with all the money it can get. Here is an opportunity for putting some power into the engine.
    Now I wish to refer to another point, which does not come strictly under the Secretary for Scotland, although, as he represents so many departments of activity, it is rather astonishing to find one which escapes him. I refer to rural telephones, which come more strictly under the Postmaster-General. What I want to ask the Secretary for Scotland to do is to use his influence with the Postmaster-General to see that the system of rural telephones is very largely extended. At the present time it is not realised as it ought to be that the telephone service is a national service, and we see in the small rural districts, where the telephone would be of the utmost benefit and advantage to farmers, that the little country areas are asked to put up guarantees before they can get the advantages of the telephone. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to use all his great influence with the Postmaster-General to endeavour to change the point of view on this matter, because the use of the telephone is of such great advantage to the rural districts in Scotland that, if we can once get it looked upon as a national service, so that the small, poor country districts may get the same advantages by it as the rich towns do, we shall be doing a great deal to advance and help the agriculture of our country.
    There is one point, to which I desire to refer for a moment, that is touched upon in a return in the Report of the Board of Agriculture. It is a matter to which I have referred on previous occasions, namely, the standard of fertilisers and feeding stuffs that are sold. The return, in the manner in which it is made now, is more intelligible than it was a year or two ago, because formerly they used to enter simply a divergence from the standard of purity, without saying whether it was above or below the mark,
    652
    but the return now, which appears on page 95 of the Report, divides up the different samples which have been tested, showing those which were above the Mark, those which were below, and those which conformed to the guarantee. While I gladly admit that a very large proportion were not only up to the guarantee, but exceeded the guarantee in value, there were at the same time some 8 per cent. of the total number of samples taken—which, after all, was a not very large number, namely, 676—which were below the guaranteed value in their contents. I should like to ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps are taken to check the sales to see that they are according to guarantee, and to prosecute if they are not; and whether any prosecutions were undertaken in respect of sales where the samples taken showed that the articles sold were below the guaranteed value.
    I should now like to turn to another branch of the activities of Scottish agriculture, which are summed up in the part of the Report relating to the Land Court. When I say, however, that the activities of the Land Court are summed up in this Report, I am afraid I am not stating what is exactly true, because their main activities are summed up in a. very large volume which is not printed, but which is a neostyle volume costing 30s. to buy. The result is that the sale of this volume, as the Secretary for Scotland very well knows, is very small indeed, and I am sorry to say it is going down. Two years ago, sixteen copies of this volume were sold, at the price of 30s., but, I regret to say that last year only 12 were sold. About a year ago I asked the Secretary for Scotland whether we could not have these most important appendices printed. They contain information of the utmost value to smallholders all through Scotland. It is a volume which should be in every parish and in every district in Scotland, so that the smallholders can consult it. At present, of course, that is quite out of the question, and no one can consult it unless he is a Member of Parliament or a millionaire. I was told that the saving on neostyling this volume instead of printing it amounted to about £300, but, as it costs about £112 to neostyle, and practically nothing comes back in return from sales, I would ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it would not be possible in future to get

    653
    these volumes printed and sold at a price that would enable anyone who wants to buy them to do so. Apart from that, the volume itself is exceedingly inconvenient, and the members of the Land Court do not bless it—I will not put any more strongly than that—especially when they have to travel about with these enormous, bulky volumes, in which it is very difficult to find one's way about, and in which, in course of time, the ink will fade away and become more and more difficult to read.
    I earnestly urge upon the Secretary for Scotland the importance of keeping this very valuable work in an available form. It appears that last year people have come from the ends of the world to look into the work that is being done by this remarkable Court of ours in Scotland, because the work that it does is really remarkable, and, speaking for myself, I look forward to the time when the work of the Land Court in Scotland will not be confined to small holdings only, but will be very much extended. A Court with power to fix fair rents and to grant compensation, a Court trained in dealing with these special technical matters, can be of the very greatest use to an agricultural community, and when we get people coming from the ends of the world to see what this remarkable Land Court is doing, it is rather a comment on our own valuation of their proceedings to see their work neostyled at a price at which no one can purchase if in our own country. I would ask if the time has not now arrived when we might ask for a report from the Land Court of the working of the Smallholders Acts since 1911. There have been a great many very important decisions given in the last 12 or 15 years and a great deal of very important work has been done with grazing Regulations and the regulating of common grazing both in the highlands and the islands, and it would be a very great advantage if we could have a report as to the working of the Acts from those who have had to administer them, so that we can see in what respects, if any, they need to be amended.
    To refer back to Denmark, it is as we know, a Free Trade country and has made its agriculture prosper, not as some Members would say in spite of Free Trade but because of it. They are able to buy all they want for their industry in the
    654
    cheapest market, and I want to utter this warning now. Under the influences of the White Paper of the Board of Trade we see from time to time protection given to industry which puts up prices. That protection is meant to put up prices because the industries are said to be distressed, but we have to remember that every price that is put up may affect agriculture, which can never be protected. We are all agreed on that. Agriculture, our own great key industry, cannot be protected. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Go to the country and try and you will soon know why not. It is not a matter to argue about. We know you cannot give protection to meat and corn. [An HON.MEMBER: "Why not?"] Let the hon. Member get the Prime Minister to put that forward as a programme and go to the country and he will get his answer soon enough.
    Mr. SKELTON: On a point of Order. Is there any suggestion that the Secretary for Scotland is proposing to introduce in these Estimates Protection through administrative methods?
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): I have been watching what the hon. Member said. He must not let his remarks develop into an argument on the question of Protection.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I was rather led away. The business begins with the administrative action which is taken by the Board of Trade under the White Paper. It is a matter to which agriculturists should always keep their eyes open I was saying that the success of agriculture in Denmark is very largely due to the great spirit of independence fostered with regard to it by the Government. The Government interferes very little in agricultural matters, and the less they interfere the better for it. If agriculture is going to succeed it must succeed by its own efforts and not by outside efforts. The Government can hold the ring and see that it gets fair play, and once that is done I have no fear for agriculture. When talking with leading agriculturists there they said frankly, "You look upon us as the leading country in agriculture. Do not think for a minute that we are satisfied with ourselves because we have raised the average production of our milk and cows to their present figure. We are not going to stop

    655
    there. We are always trying to go one better, and we are quite ready to show other countries what we are going to do because we are not 'afraid of their competition if we always go on, with our independent spirit, trying to go better." The research work which has been and is being done in our own country is worthy of every praise, but the research work I saw in Denmark seemed to be carried on on a rather more, shall I say, co-ordinated scientific basis.
    9.0 P.M.
    Experiments of an exactly similar nature were being carried out in diffrent localities all through the country over a period of years in the most careful and scientific manner as regards the productivity of different soils treated with similar and different fertilisers, and then after a series of, I think, seven years that these similar experiments were being made, the whole of the results are brought together and tabulated so that the Table will show what will be the best fertilisers and the best seeds to apply to given soils. I should like to see something of that sort done on a more extended scale in Scotland. We have had a good deal done by demonstration in different parts of. Scotland. That is in the same direction, but it is not done on quite a sufficiently scientific basis, and if the Secretary for Scotland could put that forward for consideration by his scientific advisers it might be of advantage to the agricultural interest as a whole. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will not be, shall I say, over-cautious. None of us like to be considered rash, but I think perhaps the Secretary for Scotland is a little over-cautious in his agricultural policy. I would ask him to take his courage in both hands and not let his advisers at the Board of Agriculture consider things too much, for by this means they become
    "sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought; And enterprises of great pith and moment, With this regard, their currents turn away,
    And lose the name of action."
    Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I welcome another opportunity of discussing for a short time the agricultural Vote for Scotland notwithstanding the fact that last week we had an opportunity of
    656
    putting forward our views on agricultural questions. The subject is of such supreme importance to the Scottish nation that I think every opportunity that is afforded us of discussing these matters can be usefully taken advantage of. While we on these benches are in agreement with quite a number of the points dealt with by the Secretary for Scotland, such as research and education and a number of others, which I think I mentioned on the last occasion we were discussing the subject, at the same time we think that if agriculture is to be put on the footing which I believe every Member of the Committee would like to see he will require to go much further than was outlined in his speech last week. We feel that a live, bold, agricultural policy is vital to our people. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture agrees largely with that point of view. At a meeting held in the early part of the year they passed a resolution which outlined an agricultural policy that corresponds very closely with that which has been advocated by the Scottish Labour Members for a considerable time past. Here is part of the policy outlined in the resolution referred to. They say first that the land should yield its highest economic possibility in the way of food for the nation. That is just what we have been failing to do for many years past in Scotland as well as in other parts of Great Britain. In the last 17 years or thereabouts the acreage under crops has decreased by no less than 150,000 acres, and since 1914 the acreage under crop and grass has decreased by no less than 70,000 acres. These figures present an aspect of our agricultural life which I am certain is not pleasant either to one side of the House or the other.
    The Resolution goes on to say that if the land is to yield the highest food production that object can only be secured by an increase of the arable area or by a more intensive cultivation thereof. Both are required—the extension of the available area and the more intensive cultivation of the acreage. In order to give effect to a policy of that kind, the Secretary of State for Scotland would be well advised to have a complete re-survey of every county from the agricultural point of view. He has already a number of figures in the Scottish Board of Agriculture, but he should have a complete up-to-date survey made of every county, in

    657
    order to see the possibilities of agriculture in the country. That complete survey would let him know how many small holdings could be allotted and how many small farms would be available. Lest week he said that there required to be small farms as well as small holdings, so that agriculturists could go from the small holdings to the small farms and then to the larger farms. Such a survey would inform him as to the amount of land available for that purpose. It would let him know how many acres of arable land are available in Scotland, and how many acres can be secured for grazing purposes. I understand that it is one of the strong points in the general agricultural policy of the Government that within the last year or two they have been encouraging knowledge of the production of meat and milk.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Hear, hear!
    Mr. ADAMSON: The survey would enable him, by having a complete knowledge of how many acres of land are available for grazing purposes in Scotland, to forward that policy. It would also inform him how much land is available for afforestation. He will agree with me that afforestation is of extreme importance to our people, not only from the point of view of agriculture and the work it would find for people engaged on the land but because of the saving it would be to the country by enabling us to produce a larger quantity of the wood which we use from year to year. It would enable him to see how many acres of land are available for a combination of afforestation and agriculture. Some time ago the Forestry Commission discussed the question of combining small holdings with afforestation, small holdings being provided for the men engaged in afforestation schemes. The survey would enable the right hon. Gentleman to find out how ninny acres of land are waterlogged, and can be drained and reclaimed at a reasonable cost. I am strongly of opinion that there is a much larger area of land in a waterlogged condition in Scotland than many people think. The survey would enable him to have a fair idea of how much land could be reclaimed, particularly along the arms of the sea.
    658
    If we are to make a complete success of agriculture, we must treat this question as a whole and examine it from every point of view. To be successfully treated, land settlement must be treated as a whole. Another part of the resolution of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture says that the land should furnish a basis of life and a reasonable livelihood to the greatest number of people. Here I think we are reversing the policy that ought to help us through. The number of people who are getting a living on the land in Scotland is steadily on the decrease. Between 1881 and 1911 the decrease in the number of those engaged on the land in Scotland amounted to 55,162 male persons. If we add to that number the wives and children belonging to that big section of our people, it means that there has been a reduction of the agricultural population in Scotland in those years amounting roughly to about 250,000. If we add to the reduction in those years the decrease that has taken place between 1908 and 1925 we get an additional number of male agricultural workers of 36,350 who left the land. Between 1881 and 1925 more than one-third of our agricultural population has disappeared. They have emigrated or have been absorbed into the industrial districts, intensifying our industrial problems and adding enormously to an already very difficult industrial situation.
    Before long, we shall require to give far more attention to our agricultural resources than we have done before, at least within the last 100 years, not only in Scotland but in England. We cannot hope to continue to be the workshop of the world to the same extent as we have been for nearly 100 years. If I am correct in assuming that, we shall not be able to take as big a share of the world's trade in the future as we have done in the past and we shall not have the same amount of money available for purchasing that large proportion of our foodstuffs from abroad that we have been in the habit of doing in recent years. We shall require to grow a bigger proportion of our own foodstuffs. If we follow the policy that will enable us to do this, it will at the same time enable us to find work on the land for a very much large proportion of our population than we have done within recent years.

    659
    I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) again try to reinforce the remarks I made a week ago with regard to the value of co-operation. I hope those remarks are not going to fall on deaf ears, and that the Secretary for Scotland is really going to do all he can to encourage co-operation among the farming population. That is one of the things that will make agriculture a greater success than if we go on in the individualistic way in which we have been working for a number of years. Not only do I believe that co-operation in agriculture is good, I believe that co-operation in any industry is good. Everything that can be done to make agriculture a greater success in the future ought to make a strong appeal to everyone. Not that I think the farmers in Scotland are less active than farmers in other parts of the world. The Scottish farmer can hold his own with the farmer anywhere, but I think the Government is doing far less for agriculture than it should. Some of the things which I have pointed out to-night, and to which I referred a week ago, lie more to the hand of the Government than they do to the individual farmer. There is much that can be clone by the Government to stimulate and encourage agriculture, and the Government should avail itself of every opportunity of encouraging and increasing the amount of agriculture possible in this country because it is of vital importance to the future of our people.
    Sir HARRY HOPE: In the speeches of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Western Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) we have had no repetition of that criticism in regard to Scottish methods which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made earlier this afternoon in regard to English agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in describing the conditions of British agriculture, said that we were importing £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 more meat than before the War, and that our stock unit per 100 acres is less than the stock unit in Denmark and Belgium. In regard to the criticism as regards the units of our stock the right hon. Gentleman ignores
    660
    the very apparent fact that in this country we have an enormous area of land taken up by hills and mountains, and, therefore, any comparison between the number of our units per 100 acres watt the units of stock in these level countries on the Continent is quite fallacious. We have to consider this evening the administrative action of the Secretary for Scotland as regards agricultural affairs, and I think we must be struck with the one outstanding success which has been achieved during the year—namely, the convening of the Agricultural Conference in Edinburgh of all parties connected with the agricultural industry in order to see whether a great and practical policy can be brought forward for the benefit of the industry.
    Last week when the Vote was being discussed, some criticism was made on the benches opposite that the recommendations of that Conference had not been carried out by the Secretary for Scotland. What are the facts of the case? The first recommendation which the Conference made was that money should be voted for drainage. What has been done as regards that? In the year 1924–25, £33,500 was available for drainage, and another £10,000 was added on the 1st January, 1925. On the 31st December, 1925, £28,000 of that money had been spent upon schemes costing £65,000, and £45,000 of it went in wages. By it, 5,100 acres of arable land were thoroughly drained and 160,000 acres of other land surface drained. We are told by this Report that in the present year £20,600 is being devoted to this purpose. Does not that indicate that the Secretary for Scotland has carried out the first recommendation made by the Conference? Then again as to loans of money at low rates of interest to farmers the Government are, as we know, carrying that into effect. As regards houses, that is the building of more houses in rural Scotland, and the reconditioning and repair of existing houses, both of which are of enormous importance the Government are at the present time considering the best method of giving practical effect to it.
    Then there is the recommendation that money should be spent on research and demonstration areas. We know by this Report that large sums of money have been given for these two purposes. Other recommendations which the Con-

    661
    ference made were that more electrical power should be available for our requirements, and that foreign produce should be marked with the country of origin. On these two points action, has been taken by legislative means which it would be out of order for me to discuss at the moment. The Conference also recommended that a 10s. duty should be placed upon imported foreign malting barley, and that the Agricultural Rates Relief Act should be continued. Both these subjects are outside the scope of our discussion this evening, but from what I have said, it can be proved that the Secretary for Scotland has taken steps to carry out the recommendations of that practical and useful Conference.
    One of the main parts to which the Board of Agriculture has turned its attention to has been land settlement. We have heard on many occasions very earnest remarks in favour of land being available for ex-service men. During the year under review 257 new small holdings have been created, 106 of them being for ex-service men. What was the cost of those 257 new small holdings? Under the Smallholders Act, 1911, £175,000 was spent. Under the Land Settlement Act, 1919, £110,000 was spent. In all, £286,000 has been spent upon making those 257 new small holdings. Altogether, since this new small holdings policy, as we can read in Appendix No. 1 to the Report, a total of 4,498 new small holdings have been created under the two Acts to which I have referred. 12,055 applicants are still waiting for small holdings. When we begin to arrive at what is the wisest policy to pursue on this question we must take a comprehensive view of the subject. What does it cost us to carry out this policy? If we look at this subject in that way, we find that every one of those new small holdings created had cost the taxpayers £1,000. That is a large sum of money for a small holding. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney, when he was discussing the small holdings system in Denmark, said that one of the reasons for their success was that they were founded upon an economic basis. I cannot but think that when small holdings cost something like £1,000 there is going to be such a dead-weight of debt and of capital expenditure hanging over them that there is very little chance of them ever being an economic proposition.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Perhaps I should have said that the cost of making a holding in Denmark is approximately the same as in Scotland.
    Sir H. HOPE: I leave the matter as I stated it. In those days, when money is so tight and when we require money for so many essential services, we must temper our enthusiasm for small holdings with a wise recognition of what our financial obligations are. While we recognise that the Board of Agriculture can play a great part in assisting agriculture in Scotland, we must all recognise that the foundation stone of any agricultural prosperity must be, and is, the individual skill and energy of the farmer. Farming is an industry which, as it were, is closely associated with nature and her laws. Any man taking to agriculture as a calling must make it his point to probe into the secrets of nature as deeply as he possibly can. Therefore, research work, and money spent upon research work, is a very necessary procedure. In the activity of the Board of Agriculture we see that considerable sums of money have been spent in that direction. Nature and science are allies. I have had close association with practical agriculture and I know, as a practical agriculturist, that any man who wants to make the most of his work requires to harness science to his efforts. There is a wide field for the Committee in its efforts to introduce new varieties of plant and seeds. On the whole, most of the prolific new varieties of seeds have come from Sweden, therefore, when we are undertaking research work, it is only right that we should turn our attention to that direct ion and endeavour to supply the farmers of this country with new varieties of plants and seeds of such a prolific nature that they will not be dependent upon those coming from foreign soil.
    In carrying on this valuable research work we have, of course, in Scotland agricultural colleges. Those colleges have the support of the county councils and the education authorities in their districts. Unfortunately, they carry on hampered by great financial burdens. One result of that is that their staffs are grossly underpaid. We Scottish Members have had deputations from the staffs in the past, and we do know how their efforts are hampered and how, perhaps, promising young men are

    663
    drawn away from our Scottish agricultural colleges, all because their salaries are not in keeping with the scale paid in England. That is a state of affairs which, in the interests of efficiency and of this invaluable research work, ought not to be continued. I know my right hon. Friend is taking every possible step to bring about improvements in that direction. He very wisely acts upon the policy of getting the districts round the agricultural colleges to come in and bear a greater share of this financial burden. As they do that, naturally, they will take more interest in the work carried on, and I earnestly hope, whether it is by local support or by Treasury grant, that we may see this grievance to a very large extent removed in the future. Undoubtedly, it has a hampering effect upon this work in Scotland.
    I turn to another branch of scientific development, namely, that connected with the veterinary profession. We have in our flocks and herds diseases the cause of which and the cure for which are at present largely unknown. While that state of affairs exists, it is only right that public money should be used in support of these veterinary colleges which will have the result of removing some of these scourges and lightening the cost which they entail on the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has supported the Royal (Dick) College in Edinburgh, and has made it the principal veterinary college in Scotland. I quite agree that, in his support of the Royal (Dick) College, he is acting wisely, but our other veterinary college in Scotland, namely, that of Glasgow, is also a very deserving institution. I observe by this report that it received the paltry sum of £50 last year. Perhaps my right hon. Friend has not enough money to help both these veterinary colleges. Yet when we see the many diseases which are devastating our herds at the present time, and when we realise that there may be many young men in the West of Scotland—perhaps in the Highlands and the Islands—who are unable to go to Edinburgh, but who might naturally drift into Glasgow, we should recognise the possibilities of the genius which may be lying dormant in this respect at present and which might blossom out into a great national asset. Therefore, I hope in the
    664
    future there may be some more assistance for the Glasgow Veterinary College.
    The recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has been the outstanding feature during the past year. Personally, I think it fortunate for the agricultural industry and for the nation that at last we have been able to locate the source of the disease. We have had it definitely proved that carcases of pigs have been the means of conveying foot-and-mouth disease into this country. Not only have we seen our own herds affected, but we know the danger which may arise to human beings from infected animals. Therefore, I think the prohibition of the import of these carcases until the Continent is clear of this scourge is only right, and in the interests of the people generally. The prohibition of the import of foreign pig carcases is a very important matter for the consumer. It opens up a new situation. We import a great quantity of bacon every year and with the closing of our market to bacon from these particular Continental sources, we recognise that a responsibility is placed upon and an opportunity is opened to the home Producer. Up to the present farmers have not been as progressive in regard to bacon products as they might have been. We are an individualistic people and we like to do things in our own way. Yet we need to keep our eyes open and to recognise the changed times in which we live.
    We see that the Danish methods are all in the direction of what is called standardised production. Every carcase is about the same weight and the same size; it is not a case of one carcase being long and narrow and another short and dumpy. The Danes, by organised effort, have produced a bacon pig of uniform size and weight and we in this country ought to take a leaf out of the Danish book in that respect. I understand that the pig desired by bacon curers is a pig of from 165 lbs. to 170 lbs. live weight. The Board of Agriculture gave premiums for boars, but I urge upon them to use that money in the direction of bringing into existence a system of the standardised production of bacon. I have no doubt that farmers generally will give their support in that direction and with this new prospect before them in connection with home production of bacon—which is so urgently needed in

    665
    the public interest—I think the Board of Agriculture can do a good work by not only advising the farmers in this matter, but by encouraging them to adopt standardised production. By organised effort they can make an improvement in that direction and bring a very important trade back to our own people. I think the record of work done by the Board of Agriculture during the past year is one with which Scottish Members are satisfied and I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had any intimate association with Scottish agriculture he would not be so pessimistic as he has expressed himself to be and he would not think that he knows so very much about the subject.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will not traverse the last part of the ground covered by the hon. Baronet who has just spoken, but I cordially agree with what he said on the importance of agricultural research and of education in the agricultural industry. We all know with what respectful attention the hon. Baronet is always heard in this Committee on this subject, and we know that, apart from the Secretary for Scotland, there is no one who more accurately reflects the views and intentions of the Government on agricultural questions than he does. It is, therefore, with the greater diffidence and reluctance that I find myself compelled to traverse some of the statements in the earlier part of his speech, to query some of his facts, and to dissent entirely from some of his conclusions. He congratulated the secretary for Scotland on summoning that great. Agricultural Conference and he said that all, or practically all, the recommendations of that Conference were being promptly carried into effect. I take a very different view. As a matter of fact, it is relevant to consider the composition of that Conference. I have never criticised its composition, and I do not intend to do so now. What it seemed to me was very important to do was to get a good representation of smallholders, and we did get at least one very good representative of the Scottish smallholders on that Conference, but I think it is fair to say that on the whole some people took the view that it was in its constitution a little conservative—I do not mean Conserva-
    666
    tive in a party sense—but a little inclined to take a conservative view of the problems of agriculture, and that on the whole the bodies represented on that Conference were connected with one interest in the agricultural industry more than with the other two, namely, the landed interest; at any rate, it was expected that the conclusions would be a little conservative, and I might say timid, and I think the general complaint by Scottish farmers all over the country when the conclusions were published was that they did err, if at all, on the timid and rather anæmic side.
    I am sorry the hon. Baronet the Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) has left the Chamber, because what was the first action that the Government took after the publication of that Report? The first issue that arose after the Report came out was in regard to summer time, and the Government directly flouted the recommendations of their Conference on that first issue that we had to discuss. I will not go into it now, because I want to cut my remarks as short as possible, but everybody who knows agricultural conditions in Scotland knows that, whether from the point of view of the farmer at harvest time, or of the convenience of the farm servants throughout practically the whole of the summer, it is a tremendous handicap and inconvenience to the great mass of Scottish agriculturists. The first point on which the Conference, their own Scottish National Agricultural Conference, laid the greatest stress was drainage. What are the facts about drainage? The hon. Baronet spoke as though the Government had completely carried out the recommendations of the Conference, but the Conference pointed out the urgency of making an advance on what had been done in the past, and they said:
    "There is no improvement of which land in Scotland, both fixable and grazing, is at present so urgently in need as drainage."
    and they went on:
    "The question arises whether the present scheme meets the case. In our opinion, it does not."
    What has been spent on drainage in recent years? I have the figures from the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given to me in this House. In 1922–23 the figure was £62,540; in 1923–94,

    667
    £45,125; in 1924–25, £43,500; and in 1925–26, £43,000; and all we are going td get for Scotland in the coming year is £20,000, so that on the first recommendation which the Scottish National Conference made, and the one they considered of the greatest urgency of all, the effect of the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out is to give us less than half of what we had to spend under the unemployment relief scheme for land drainage.
    Then there was the question of lime, and all we are told in the reply which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me to a question I asked last week is that an intensive survey of the agricultural economy of four parishes in Kincardineshire has been made, and that the question of a general survey of the supplies of lime will be further considered. Of course, it ought not to need to be considered. It is just under a year ago—two or three weeks under a year ago—that this Conference reported, and it ought to have passed far beyond the stage of consideration by now. On the Board of Agriculture's own property in Sutherland there is a magnificent lime kiln, and abundant supplies of lime, and in the days when communications were far more difficult than now, in Sutherland and Ross-shire and Caithness and Orkney they developed a fine supply of lime from the Erribol kilns. The Government ought to explore all the other lime resources all over the country. So much for the fulfilment of the summertime recommendations, the drainage recommendations, and the lime recommendations of the Conference.
    Then we come to credits, which is a vital question, and I spoke on the English side of it this afternoon. The hon. Baronet the Member for Forfar seemed to have some knowledge that there was a scheme on the stocks, but all that we were told last week, in the answer to my question, was that the matter was still under consideration, that discussion was still going on. It may be the hon. Baronet is right, but we have not seen the colour of this scheme yet, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us definite assurances that this scheme of credits is ready on the stocks and will be introduced before Parliament adjourns, as I hope it will
    668
    adjourn, before the end of next month. Then there is the question of housing. At last the Government are taking up the question of rural housing. We appealed to the present Minister of Health in 1923 to realise the urgency and importance of this subject and the inadequacy of the proposals he then put forward. I understand at last they are going to do something, and the most important question in that connection is the enlargement, improvement, and reconditioning of existing houses, in regard to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will at long last give us a, satisfactory assurance, an assurance for which I, personally, have been pressing on every possible occasion since 1923.
    One very useful recommendation, of great importance to Sutherlandshire and other parts of the country, is that in regard to the eradication of bracken, and I hope that that work and the investigation of that question will be pressed on by every possible means. Then there is the question of co-operation, and in that I warmly agree with everything that fell front my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton), and would press upon the Government the importance of giving a real impetus to the co-operative movement in Scotland, which can only he done with the authority of the Government. It is true that the Government could not have done it five years ago, or four years ago, or, perhaps, three years ago, but I think there is sufficient education now in Scotland, I think they really do understand the importance of it in the various districts of Scotland well enough now, and I think we have got to the point now where a big push from the Government will enable real progress to be made.
    What, after all, I think of the greatest importance from the Scottish point of view is land settlement. The hon. Baronet the Member for Forfar (Sir Harry Hope) referred to the matter as though there had not been progress made by the new holders in Scotland. It seems to me, reading the Report of the Board of Agriculture, that you get exactly the opposite impression. You get the impression that land settlement in Scotland is doing well, and the statements of the Board of Agriculture can be employed to justify this. On the other hand, there

    669
    seems very little progress being made to catch up the appalling arrears. In this demand for land settlement there is every sign of their having received more applications than they can hope to grant under present conditions. During the year 705 applications for new holdings have been received, 302 of these being from ex-service men. There are 10,055 applications in hand today, of which 3,853 are from ex-service men. The Secretary for Scotland speaks about taking away the priority of ex-service men. I hope he will make it clear that ex-service men will continue to have a priority, but that the fact that particular applications may include men who are not ex-service men have been included will not as hitherto mean that their application will not be considered. That is what I think the right hon. Gentleman means. He means, I think, that in future application are not to be ruled out because there are no ex-service men concerned, but that he will continue to give preference to ex-service men, many of whom have not yet been satisfied.
    If the present rate of advance continues, as in the Board's Report—I think it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland—I think it was 250 holdings that were constituted last year—at that rate it will take 45 years to overtake arrears. It is quite true that some people will he dead before the end of the 45 years. Against that, there are 700 applications annually. It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that even at the end of 45 years the question will not be solved if the Government are content to proceed only at the present rate. The Board of Agriculture say that the results are so successful, that in the next generation an increased number of men and women will look forward to settlement on small holdings. It seems to me therefore, that this thing must be tackled on quite different lines from those the Government are pursuing at the present moment.
    The Report of the Board also refers to the difficulty some men have experienced in settling down. I can only say this on that point that I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see that these men who are settling down are treated generously in regard to arrears of rent.
    670
    The Board in their Report refer to some of the prudent men, the smallholders who before their rents were finally fixed—because it took three or four years before some were finally fixed—the more prudent smallholders put aside money to meet the situation. But the others did not spend their money extravagantly, but they put it into their holdings, they purchased stock, and they improved the land, which was a good thing for their holdings, and a good thing for agriculture in Scotland. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, especially in the case of certain settlements, as he knows in my own constituency at Reay and elsewhere, to consider favourably the matter of generously treating those, giving them time in which to pay, and not harry them as in some cases seems to have been done. The success of this policy is amply proved. The Report of the Board says that the percentage of failures is extraordinarily small, and that the results are satisfactory.
    I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, in view of this extremely satisfactory report on the smallholdings policy, that it should be pushed forward. There is one point on that which I wish to make, and I give by way of illustration my own constituency. The point is one of real substance, and has created a good deal of interest outside my constituency—that is the question of the selling of the Erribol estate. It was bought at a very high price just after the war. The Government then said that they would settle on that estate 23 new holders and allow eight enlargements. They have managed so far to settle eight new holders they given seven enlargements. Now they propose to sell this estate at a loss; to sell it without giving the opportunity to the ex-service men of Sutherland to acquire holdings—ex-service men I agree!;—I notice that the Secretary for Scotland is looking at me suspiciously—but the only way in which they can get holdings on this estate is if they are prepared to put down £400 or £500 each for their share of the sheep stock. What is the use of that? The poor crofters who are paying a couple of pounds rent or less than two pounds—how can they be expected to put down

    671
    £400 or £500 as capital? The sale of this farm at a loss, as it must be, is I think not a good business. The right hon. Gentleman has exposed it for sale twice in Edinburgh, and twice it had to be withdrawn, each time at a lower upset. I would appeal to him to re-consider the question, give the men a few years, in the meantime settle them on the arable part of the farm with a little grazing on the seaboard where they can bring their own stock, and where they can gradually extend; (let the southern hirsels on lease for a few years to grazing farmers), then, as they get more and more, put them into the new holdings. They will then be able to afford to pay the rent, and they will be able to afford to take over the whole farm. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider following that policy rather than selling this farm at a loss at a time when there is a claimant demand, as he knows for small holdings in Sunderland, and a demand by 150 ex-service men. He knows perfectly well the strong feeling in Sutherland. I know he has heard from public men in the county who have notified him without the slightest reference to me, and I would press him that he should consider some other scheme than the one put forward.
    There are two small points I wanted to speak upon before I finish. The one is the remuneration of the staffs in the agricultural colleges. We do feel that these agricultural colleges have done an immense work. They have opened the eyes of the Scottish farmers to the value of science in agriculture. Hon. Members would not have believed 10 years ago that it was possible for the farmers in Scotland to take the view they now do as to the advantage of science. The fact that they do is very largely due to the splendid work of the staffs of these agricultural colleges. In 1919 they put an application forward for increased salaries which would put them on the same basis as similar men in similar positions in England. The application was refused. In 1923 they put forward another application. They were told that they must wait for the Report of the Constable Committee. That Committee reported two years ago, and reported in their favour. Two
    672
    years have passed and nothing has been done. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is a matter for the governors to come to an agreement with the local education authorities. I say that it is disgraceful that that point of view has not been made quite clear at an earlier stage; that two years ago the governors were not told what was their duty. By now these agricultural staffs should be getting the salaries which men employed in similar positions in England have been getting.
    There is one small point to which I would like to refer, namely, the young farmers' clubs. There is a paragraph about it in the Board of Education's Report. It is a most valuable movement, it was started in Caithness and it is spreading in Scotland now, and helps the young people of the district who come into these clubs to take an interest in agricultural experiments all over the county, and helps them greatly. To some extent the Board of Agriculture is supporting it and wholeheartedly approves of it, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me some assurance that he will help them by giving them a co-ordinating authority and some official recognition, and that an official of the Board should go, round shepherding and helping these young farmers' clubs all over the country, co-ordinating their efforts and giving them that official recognition which would enable the movement to grow with success in Scotland.
    Finally, I would like to say just a word on the question of the revival of rural life in Scotland, because the right hon. Gentleman knows how hard we are hit by emigration both to foreign lands and into the towns. The population of Caithness has fallen from 41,000 in 1861 to 28,000 to-day and it is still falling. We sec men going every day and every week from the fishing villages, and from the agricultural parts, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this problem in its wider aspects. I join with the right, hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench in asking for the national survey. Let us have a survey of the economic potentialities of our native land. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of starting it in one particular county, but let him extend the limits of his

    673
    surrey to cover the whole country, or at any rate characteristic counties all over the country, so that something really substantial and comprehensive may be obtained, and so that a bold and comprehensive policy can be initiated for the revival of the rural life of the country.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: We always listen to the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) with interest and instruction when he speaks on agricultural matters. One feels he knows what he is talking about. To-day we listened to the right hon. Member far Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and it struck me it was very like the practice which prevails in the English Bar, when a very energetic junior may provide a very magnificient brief which his senior takes in hand and starts to speak from but which he has never read or studied. That was the impression we got from the right hon. Gentleman. He gave a great many points, many of which were no doubt accurate, but one had the sort of feeling that they were picked out—points about imports of food, eggs and other commodities.
    In regard to the import of meat, which the Highlands of Scotland are doing something to supply—because there are great stock breeders among the crofters—one always has a certain feeling of despair when one reads speeches like that of the Chairman of Bovril, explaining he could raise a steer in the Argentine for about as many shillings as you could raise it for pounds in this country. One feels with the development of transport it is now cheaper almost to bring a beast from the Argentine, live or dead, than from some parts of Argyllshire to Glasgow. One feels it is difficult in these larger matters of agriculture for the home producer to compete, and still more difficult is it in the growing of grain, when one considers the gigantic areas with which he has to compete, and the certainty which the colonial always has of reaping his crop.
    There was one point which has not been dealt with fully, but on which the hon. Member for Caithness touched, namely, that of the population coming into the towns. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs never dwelt on that, but it has its psychological aspect and it is one of the features of the Anglo-Saxon
    674
    civilisation; and it is largely due to the Anglo-Saxon system of education that we have that mankind is always a gregarious animal, and tends to be so, more and more, under that system of education. The system is the same for both country and town, although the life of the town is very different as compared with that of the country. The same thing has been found in the Colonies, and one hears in Australia of the tendency to congregate in the towns, simply because things have a certain liveliness in the towns which is lacking in the duller country life.
    I think the system of education to be adopted for the country should he wholly different from that for the towns. When you have got the fundamentals, then, if you are going to be an agriculturist, you should be very early introduced to that life. I was talking with one of the leading sheep-breeders, and he told me of the results of that method of education. He said in his younger days the little boy went out with his father, and from five to six years he tended the sheep, until at 15 years he was a shepherd and knew his job thoroughly. Similarly, another man in agriculture told me how men used to go out at very early years and so became born agriculturists, fond of animals and able to take an interest in them, being brought up alongside them. That was in the summer time, and in the winter they pursued their studies, and with the advantage of the additional energy and power gained by being out in the open they were able to overtake in the winter months, from an educational point of view, the boys who had not possessed those advantages. That is the line we ought to pursue if we are going to get our population on the land. We must make the country more interesting and give our country population a less urbanised education.
    The Board of Agriculture is a body which is not too popular in the North of Scotland and least of all in Argyllshire. I will not deny that it does some very good work. The Secretary for Scotland on one or two occasions, when I have made an appeal to him, has got the Board of Agriculture readily to respond to the small bequests I have made. But still there is considerable feeling in the Highlands that the people who benefit most by the officials of the

    675
    Board of Agriculture have been hotel keepers, and that the farmer himself has not had perhaps the large benefits which one hoped he might have.
    The county I represent is different from the county represented by the hon. Member for Caithness. There the most difficult problem that we find is the problem of transport. I say to the Secretary of Scotland that if you take all the improvements—the Board of Agriculture and the Land Courts, and all the large bodies of officials who have been visited by Parliament on these districts—if you take their cumulative expenses and put them together, they would have, been sufficient to have bought the whole land of the Highlands for the agriculturists. All the efforts they can make to improve the condition of the people will be of no avail unless the problem of transport is solved, and it is made possible for the agriculturist to get his supplies and to get the products of his holding to market. All around the coast of Argyllshire there are crofters who would be able to make a reasonable living between agriculture and fishing—by the fishing itself some of them could make a comfortable living—if it were only possible for them to get supplies and to market their goods. But at the present time that is absolutely impossible.
    The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone) told me that the inhabitants there have, owing to the cost of Scottish transport, given up getting anything at all by those means, and get the whole of the supplies brought to them by steamers from the north of Ireland. They cannot get them under the Scottish system, which Has been to give a monopoly contract to one particular company which, as I have already stated in the House, combines all the evils of nationalisation with all the evils of private enterprise without any of the benefits of either. The Secretary for Scotland has had a Departmental Committee incubating on this question for a long time, but, so far as we can discover, nothing has been hatched, and the unfortunate islanders of Lismore, Islay and other places, who are very good agriculturists, have not a chance. The agriculturist on the mainland gets a road provided, partly by the Ministry of Transport and partly out of public rates,
    676
    but the unfortunate agriculturist in the islands has got to pay whatever is asked of him, and if he has anything left over he must be grateful that he is allowed to keep it. That is the position there, and unless this question is tackled it will be impossible to secure the full development of these parts of Scotland.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that, in contrast to the position in England, the Board of Fisheries in Scotland is a separate body. We are now on the Vote for the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I hope I have not transgressed. I was speaking about the difficulty of the agriculturist getting his produce to market because of the lack of transport, and I was asking the Secretary for Scotland, who has set up a Departmental Committee on the subject, to take steps to make it possible for the agriculturists in the Highlands, and, above all, in the Western Isles, to get their produce to market, whether by road or by steamer.
    There is another matter to which I would direct the attention of the Secretary for Scotland. I do not think it requires legislation, being, I believe, a purely departmental matter. We in Argyllshire, have been particularly successful in growing sugar-beet. I take credit to myself that before the matter was taken up by the Labour Government or by anyone in Scotland, I had supplied seed and instructions to all the farmers in Argyllshire, who took keenly to the growing of sugar-beet. When, later, instructors came to teach them, they found them busily growing sugar-beet. They have already grown sugar-beet with a higher content of sucrose than in any part of the world. There is more than 20 per cent. and upwards of sucrose in the sugar-beet grown in the Mull of Kintyre—20·7, I think, whereas 15 per cent. is regarded ordinarily as a very good content. In Argyllshire, too, they are very successful with the growing of potatoes. A very large portion of the seed potatoes for England are brought from Argyllshire. [Interruption.] That is what I am assured by a potato grower. That applies also to the Mull of Kintyre. They have a hardihood which can stand—
    Mr. MacLAREN: Strong drink!
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: The sugar-beet industry ought to be developed, and not alone for the making of sugar, because in Germany, in Belgium, in France and in the United States, there is rapidly springing up a very large industry in power alcohol, a large portion of which is made from sugar-beet. In any particular district where there is an over supply of potatoes, instead of allowing them to rot you could always send them to a distillery and get something for them, and in this way the highest maximum price would be obtained. I urge the Secretary for Scotland to approach the Treasury with a view to getting his grant increased and extended to those parts of the country in order to set up small distilleries in the districts where the sugar-beet factories have been established. We also want our motor transport developed to a greater extent and we should develop these industries in those parts of the Highlands by establishing small distilleries which would be a great benefit to agriculture. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will get the Board of Agriculture to go into this question and get a larger grant. I am satisfied if he does this that the Board of Agriculture will have taken the biggest step in advance for the development of the Highlands and smallholdings. If the Secretary for Scotland can get this matter looked into by the Board of Agriculture he will have done an immense deal for land settlement in the Highlands and if he succeeds in developing transport as well he will have achieved a greater success than any of his predecessors.
    Mr. HARDIE: I want to deal with some points which were raised on the English Vote with regard to drainage. I took a great interest in that Measure, and I can see the tremendous difficulties of drainage. In Scotland drainage becomes a very small item indeed. If we had set ourselves seriously at any time to drain the land of Scotland, we could have done it at a thousandth part of what it would cost to do it here. What is wrong with the application of our land in Scotland is that you are prevented in every way from getting anything done in the interests of the nation. I was reading an article the other day about the way in which pigs are bred in the hills in Italy. A boy goes out in the morning from the town, gets the pigs, and makes
    678
    for the hills, coming back at night. We are told in Scotland that we cannot do anything like that, but we should be able to do so, and why should we not make an effort, in any case, to see whether we can, in view of the statements that have been made as to the dangers of foot-and-mouth disease, not only to four-footed animals, but to the two-footed animals who eat them? From the point or view of health it would be well worth some expenditure of money.
    Seeing that, so far as agriculture is concerned, this country is going to be in the hands of people who have the right to say whether their land shall be used in to interests of the nation or not, we have got to the point when we shall have to consider whether we shall wait until, owing to development in those countries from which we now get food supplies, they will say they have no food to send us. Would it not be sane to start now, seeing that out of every five loaves that we eat four are imported? I would be glad to give any services that I could, from the question of drainage down to the question of pigs, and I know the Secretary for Scotland will give me great opportunities. When you come to discuss the question of getting labour for the land, and the difference between the seasonal needs of land, you want to get an understanding of what is meant, by the concentration of industries in towns. In this House during the last three weeks a number of people have been talking about the emigration of large blocks of miners and their families away out to some foreign land. They say it is all right so long as you can get rid of the unemployed miners across the seas; they do not suggest that we might teat the value of spending the money in starting them here, and seeing what they can do on the land. You do not in any way increase the wealth of the nation by sending people who are producers abroad to some other country to produce there; it would be far better first to use every inch of the land and employ all the labour you can upon it. It has been said very often that the miner is a grand type for training to work on the land. If that be so, why give other people across the sea the advantage? Why not take full advantage of the miner and his capacity for changing over, and get down to the real business of agriculture?

    679
    A statement was made in regard to electrical power in the Highlands. People speak of electrical power, forgetting some of the illustrations that are being given in the Committee which is considering the Electricity Bill. If you are going to have electrical power applied to industrial areas in this country, you have to get down to the fact that you cannot possibly distribute electrical potential over large areas in order to tap it at distant points; but if you had your community so cut up with reafforestation that men are taken during the months when they are not required for agriculture, and if you had at the same time small industries, many of which do better in the country than in the towns, linked up and arranged, you could cheapen your electrical energy per unit, because, in that great expensive main line that you must take through the area—
    Mr. J. STUART: On a point of Order. Is it in order now to discuss the Electricity Bill?
    Mr. HARDIE: I am not discussing the Electricity Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to discuss the Electricity Bill, but I understood that the hon. Member was making some suggestions to the Scottish Board of Agriculture that they should make some sort of survey as to where electrical power might be used.
    Mr. HARDIE: That is the only way in which you are going to get really cheap power, whether for agriculture or for small industries, in order to prevent additional drafting into the cities. You have to get down to the scheme now on a basis on which I think it would work smoothly. If, however, you start getting miners on to the land, beginning with the drainage and the bracken, I am not blind to the fact that, if all that public money is going to be spent in order to take away from a man's land the bracken which he is too lazy or stupid to remove, then, after the public has done that for him, he charges a higher rent. I am not blind to that, but I want to get. Members on the other side to understand that what happens is that, when public money is spent on improving land, us less at the same time you make provision for taking the value of the improvements mane with public money, the landlord is going to
    680
    say, "This is a very good thing; there is some more bracken higher up."
    The CHAIRMAN: That would require legislation; it is not within the powers of the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. HARDIE: I do not think it would require legislation if the Secretary for Scotland were more energetic. There are many ways in which he could do it through present legislation. If you take the question of roads, which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), here is something that is worth the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, and would not require legislation, because the legislation is through. Wherever you get a good stretch of country where the motorist can have a good time you will have a road, but you will find that, if you want a road through Mull, or Rum, or Eigg, or Tiree, there is nothing like the same energy in getting roads in those places. When it comes to what the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire was talking about, I have been on that in this House more than once, and I am glad he has taker it up. It is a sign that we are improving with contact. But may I point out a new feature which may have occurred to the Secretary for Scotland, that if you take the islands the hon. Member was speaking about, you could develop your alcohol, which would give you all the power you require for any industry. I remember dealing with this in the House three years ago, and some people laughed at me, but they did not know what. France was doing. It is not a question of getting up and trying to make a speech, but of trying to get you to understand that these are practical things that can be done, and the nation that is going to be a great nation has got to get down to all these practical things to get employment for its people.
    May I make one reference to the Glasgow Veterinary College. It is very unfair. If you are to judge by the money allocated I should say the right hon. Gentleman is mote favourable to Edinburgh than to Glasgow. Imagine, only giving TC50 to the Glasgow Veterinary College! If you take the results of these two colleges, the greater man has come through the Glasgow College. [HON MEMBERS "No!"] Yes. No one can deny that when you have the book that

    681
    shows it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] No, you cannot. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is trying to feel that he must do something for the adjacent borough. He has not been in touch with the Glasgow Veterinary College. He does not know anything about it.
    Now when it comes to the question of transport, I have been on the island of Coll years ago, and went through a three years' course of visitation to these islands. It was not a question of going to the expense of making a road. I suggest again to the Secretary for Scotland that we have now a system of inland transport highly developed. That is road transport. I do not care whether you take the islands in Scotland or anywhere else. Where you have to deal with these heavy bogs, and you have your lands lying on each side of them, there is no reason why you should not be able to transport in or out at half the cost of the road. The whole of it could be done with a single road. When you get to the islands, they are so small that there is no difficulty at all. When it comes to the question of transport, if you are not going to make the roads, you ought to do something by these other means in order to give the islands a chance. What chance has an islander? He is cut off because he is on an island, and he is at the mercy of the landlord. The whole of this business, so far as agriculture is concerned, is that every improvement we have made by public money has gone direct into the pockets of the landlord. If we were a sane people, we would say: "If you are not going to keep this land in order, we are going to give you an interest in keeping it in order. We will tax every inch of it at its full value, and make you go into the market to get the money to pay the tax."
    Mr. SKELTON: I rise with hesitation because I feel certain the number of suggestions the Secretary for Scotland has received must make him feel very disinclined to listen to any more. I want very much to congratulate him on one particular achievement of this year's work, and that is this very careful survey that has been made of agricultural parishes. Anyone who follows the work that is done must know how very progressive and valuable it is; but in striking out an entirely new line in present agricultural
    682
    conditions, I think the right hon. Gentleman has done something of very great value, not only to Scotland, but to the whole country. I would urge him to publish as soon as he can the result of these surveys, because I believe it will show that it is possible even now for a skilful farmer to make a very good living off a Scotch farm. Although no doubt it will be shown that some farmers in these parishes are having a bad time, the fact will undoubtedly be brought out that a proper application of modern skill, even in the distrissed condition of agriculture to-day, results in a profit and not in a loss.
    It is clear from the Report of the Board of Agriculture recently published that we have reached, with regard to land settlement, a stage where the knowledge acquired should be collected and carefully studied. I will not quote the figures with regard to the increasing population, the increasing produce and the increasing stock which land settlement brings with it, but those who have looked at the Report cannot fail to be very struck with such figures as these. Taking the arable farms, on seven arable farms before settlement there was a population of 294 persons, and after settlement 682. Taking four pastoral farms, prior to settlement there was a population of 97 persons and after settlement a population of 545. I could give the Committee similar figures in regard to the increase of stock. These are only figures in regard to a few farms which have been tested in that way, and it would be of immense value if the Secretary of State for Scotland would appoint a Departmental Committee to give us the full results on all the main heads of land settlement up to date. First, the increase of the holding population, and, secondly, the increase of the employed population.
    In my small studies of land settlement both in England and in Scotland, nothing amazes me more than the enormous number of men who are employed over and above the holders themselves in cultivating intensively small holdings. If we could only have full and careful figures as to the employment which land settlement brings with it, we should have a new and most potent argument in favour of that policy. In the third place, we want up-to-date figures as to the increase of stock and, fourthly, as to the increase in value of the production of the

    683
    land. We have a considerable store of information available for study. Let me urge, as a prelude to further advance, that this information should he studied and collated and put before the public. If we have that done, I do not think it would he possible to hear observations like those made by the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope). I do not think views so reactionary would be possible to be heard.
    I believe that we shall never make a full use of the land in getting the full produce and the full wealth from it until we definitely, carefully and steadily continue the policy of recolonising the land of England and Scotland. I am satisfied from my studies of the subject that that can be clone. It cannot be done in a moment but only by continuous effort, and it can only be clone if there is a steady public opinion behind it. It is in order to rouse and to concentrate that steady public opinion that I urge the. Secretary of State for Scotland to give us full knowledge of the length we have already reached and the achievements we have already made in regard to land settlement in Scotland. With that full opinion behind him, he need not hesitate in going forward, and we shall then do a great deal of work which will be very valuable to the country before this Government goes out of power.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This Debate has been characterised by the general helpful tone of the speeches. I am very conscious of the shortcomings of any public department, and I am not going to claim that, during the past year, which the Committee is reviewing, the Board of Agriculture or I as the Minister responsible for the Board of Agriculture have achieved everything which we set out to achieve; but I do think that we have made material progress. The Committee will be aware that the Conference which was called in Scotland did not receive the support from certain quarters which I think we were entitled to expect. But that it was a Conference representative of all classes of agriculturists is quite certain. That Conference made many recommendations which have been the basis of the agricultural policy of the Government. I have been told that very little has been done; that the Conference itself was timid. I think the Conference
    684
    was wise in this, that being a body of practical men, and looking at tips question as practical men with a knowledge of the difficulties with which we are faced at the moment, it did not make propositions which were in the main outside the possibility of achievement.
    Let me take some of the points which the hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) raised. He complained about Summer Time. I have every sympathy from the point of view of the agriculturist with the difficulties which agriculture may have to face in accepting such a Measure as Summer Time, but I am convinced that these difficulties are not to be weighed as against the great advantages which come to the great mass of the people of this country, and I say further, as one who has had some practical experience in agriculture, that it is possible to adapt oneself to these conditions. Let me turn to the question of drainage. The Conference asked that drainage should be dealt with, but on different lines, and that has been carried out. The restriction previously was that no drainage scheme could be carried out except by unemployed labour. That was a Measure necessary in a difficult time, but it was clear that if drainage was to be effective it must be liberated from that restriction: and the restriction has been removed. It is always a difficult problem to decide whether the amount of money laid aside for any purpose is sufficient, but in any case the Government have in all these matters to weigh carefully, not only the advantages of a. particular system, but their responsibility to the general taxpayer. I am always willing to press the Treasury for larger contributions for useful purposes, but I think we have, at any rate, made a reasonable start and upon fresh conditions.
    With regard to liming I agree that it is a subject of paramount importance for agriculture. It is almost as important as drainage, the two go together. It would be folly to waste lime on land which is not properly drained. Drainage is followed by liming. We are making progress in this matter and we have had a survey made of one particular county. Let me say one word about that survey and the lessons it may bring. I think it is a useful start, and from this survey and the record which it brings I think we shall have much useful information.

    685
    While I have not had much time to study this first Report I am quite convinced that it would be wise, as soon as we can carry it out, to make a further survey of typical areas in other parts of the country. This kind of survey can only be carried out after a good deal of care by selecting people who have the best knowledge on the subject. It is a problem which takes time and is also costly. I am limited in the amount I am able to spend on such objects. That we are alive to the necessity and utility of such a service is clear. I hope in the future to be able to make a further survey. It would be unwise to jump to conclusions too rapidly upon a partial survey such as we have been able to carry out.
    With regard to rural housing, the Government are very conscious of the necessity for improving matters. That is one thing which is no doubt clearly brought out in such a survey as we have made. Customs, of course, differ in different parts of the country, but it is clear that there are many parts of Scotland, particularly in the north and north-east, where we have too much of what is known as the othy system, and it is essential that, so soon as we can devise means, we should do what we can to increase the number of cottages available for the farming community. The Government are actively dealing with this matter, and I hope it way soon be possible to make an announcement of policy.
    We then come to such questions as the eradication of bracken. That is a current problem in the Highlands of Scotland. I need only say that there are many farmers and proprietors who are actively taking steps to deal with that problem. On the other side, the agricultural colleges are making yearly definite experiments in varieties of methods to deal with this question. It is not an easy one, and it is, unfortunately, also a costly one, because of the extent of it and the number of men you have to employ if you are going to deal with these large areas.
    I come to the question of land settlement. I was asked by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness what was the considered policy with regard to the ex-service men. All I can say on that is that we have endeavoured, and I think
    686
    with some measure of success, to meet those undertakings which we gave for the settlement of ex-service men. It is becoming abundantly clear to those who have to administer these problems that, while there are many ex-service men who can, and want to, be considered, we have increasingly, at the present time, many men who are not ex-service men but who are well qualified to become smallholders, who are suitable, and will make a real success because of their training and their knowledge. The policy which I am laying down is that applicants will be considered on their merits. Preference to ex-service men will be given, other things being equal. I do not wish to rule out ex-service men, but I do wish to give the fullest, opportunity to the individuals of the other class who are likely to make a success of this movement. Of course, many difficulties face us, such as that to which the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness referred in connection with Erribol. Everyone is aware that the Government acquired the estate in a time of great pressure, and I came to the conclusion myself, after investigating the difficulties which the Board have had in finding any suitable scheme for the development of that property, that the trouble is to find men with capital. After all, this is a sheep farm, carrying a stock of something like 4,000 sheep. Up to now we have been arable to find individuals prepared to take on the responsibility involved. The farm has been put up for sale, and I am hopeful that it may be sold. I believe that by doing so, we shall clear the way for more useful work. If it should happen that we cannot dispose of it, then I am ready and willing to consider any scheme such as the hon. Baronet mentioned, and go into it in detail at another time. I am very conscious of the interest which hon. Members take in the staffs of the agricultural colleges in Scotland. I told the House of Commons on a previous occasion what I proposed to do. I hope to take some action before long which will bring about a satisfactory result.
    I am very anxious that we should proceed with the investigation of the scientific side of agriculture, and I would like to see going hand-in-hand with it, a sane land policy. I myself feel that land settlement is very costly, and that you may make a loss upon

    687
    every holding of something like £400. It may be that such is inevitable, and that it is the State's desire to pay to that extent for the results which are achieved. But it is a costly scheme, and I am, therefore anxious that it should be proceeded with in the Measure which I described when I spoke previously, because I believe that by overstating the case, or overdoing this policy you are only going to bring disaster to the people concerned. It is better to go on steadily, and if we do so I see no reason why we should not achieve satisfactory results.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress, to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    EXCHEQUER GRANTS (MESTON COMMITTEE).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
    Miss LAWRENCE: On the Motion for the Adjournment, I have a strange story to relate to the House. What I am about to speak of is the question of the long-delayed Report of the Meston Committee. This Committee was appointed by Treasury Minute to discuss the question of block grants. It was appointed in 1922, and it took a lot of evidence. I was a member of the London County Council, which gave evidence before the Committee, and evidence was given by the Association of County Councils, the Association of Municipal Boroughs, the Association of Rural District Councils, the Association of Urban District Councils, Poor Law Authorities, the Association of County Accountants, the Association of Borough Treasurers, and all the spending Departments and the Treasury. Of all that evidence, one solitary scrap has arrived to the public, and that is the evidence of the Board of Education, and it is no wonder that the municipalities
    688
    are complaining, because the question of the allocation of the funds between national and local authorities is a matter which acutely concerns every ratepayer and municipality.
    The Committee did this vast amount of work, and accumulated this vast amount of evidence, very industriously until the 6th of March, 1923, when it separated for the chairman to consider his draft Report, and months and years went on, and nothing whatever happened until February of this year, when Lord Meston, presented a draft Report. Nothing whatever happened, except that the chairman's draft Report, which has never been submitted to a member of the Committee, and was, therefore, in the nature of a private and confidential document, somehow found its way to the "Times" in March, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer contented himself with saying he had seen it. Why has Lord Meston conducted a three years' lock-out of the members of his Committee? I am very much afraid it is a political lock-out, because there are only two explanations, both of which it is extremely distasteful to me to mention to the House. One is that the Chairman is a man of exceeding eccentricity of character, and the other is that some influence has been brought to bear on the Chairman on the part of the Government to prevent the Committee considering the Report. Up to now, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, I understood that the first was the correct explanation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was pressed with questions as to why the Chairman had maintained this long and obstinate silence. I pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically a few days ago as to whether the Government had or had not any communication to make on this, and the right hon. Gentleman replied, looking round the House and adopting a gesture that seemed to suggest that it was a good joke, that the Government was not prejudiced at all, that they were not waiting for the Report of the Committee on block grants. I do say, however, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the way in which public business ought to be done. Everybody knows that the House of Commons has sufficient public spirit not to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no remedy whatever

    689
    against the negligence of a Chairman of a Committee! I do not believe that in the whole history of the proceedings of a Committee, or of the Royal Commission, that there has been a case like this. Evidence was taken on an important question, and later the Minister in charge disavowed all responsibility. We are dealing with questions of great importance to the taxpayers and of great importance to the municipalities. The Government are going forward with the block grant, and the public have no knowledge whatever and no information in regard to this Committee except what I have indicated. I want also to ask the Government why that state of affairs is allowed to go on? Is it the case that when I ask the Chancellor that representation should be made the Chancellor hinted that the Government, at any rate, would not be displeased if this Committee did not issue any report at all?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am not sorry that the hon. Lady has brought forward this question, and I do not think she has exaggerated the facts of the case, but I entirely dissent from one thing, and one thing only, which she said. It is not the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at any time disavowed responsibility—subject to what I am about to say—for this Committee, but I quite admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and not he only, but some of his predecessors—has exercised an extreme forbearance in this matter. I have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when Parliament is entitled to know the real facts of this case, which is a very remarkable one, very rare indeed in the conduct of public business in this country, if not unprecedented altogether—though perhaps it might be found in some Oriental countries where procrastination has been brought to the highest state of perfection.
    It was in May, 1922, more than four years ago, that in a consequence of criticism which had been made by the Geddes Committee on the system of percentage grants in local administration, the Government of that day appointed a Committee to inquire into and report on that system. They invited Lord Meston, who had made a reputation in India as a financial administrator, to accept the responsible position of Chairman of this
    690
    Committee. He accepted that office, and one must presume that when he did so he felt not only that he was competent for the task, but that he had at his disposal sufficient leisure to carry it out. The Committee held, as the hon. Lady has said, a number of sittings, and at first it appeared to be industriously engaged on its task and a considerable amount of evidence was heard. But in November of that year a General Election took place which to some extent interrupted the business of the Committee and it was not until the following March, in 1923, that a meeting of the Committee was held, presumably to draft a Report, an outline of which I believe had at that time been made by the Secretaries. That was in March, 1923, and from that date to this, more than three years, the Chairman has never summoned this Committee together and has never submitted to them a draft Report for consideration. A year passed and then, in the summer of 1924, the Select Committee of this House on the Estimates, which was interested in this matter, summoned before them an official of the Treasury to give an explanation, if he could, as to why nothing had been done. I believe I am right in saying that at that time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Come Valley (Mr. Snowden) who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, saw Lord Meston on the subject and that the latter promised to complete his Report before Parliament rose for the Recess in August of that year. All I can say is that if that be so—and that is my information—that was only the first of several similar assurances which Lord Meston has given and neglected to observe.
    In the autumn—I am still dealing with 1924—a number of letters were written to Lord Meston on the subject from the Treasury, to which his Lordship did not think it was necessary to send any reply; but at last in answer to a rather urgent expostulation that reached him over the telephone, he promised that he would write that same day explaining the position. No letter was received, and the next we knew of the Chairman of the Committee was that he was at Khartum, and from there he wrote a letter to the Treasury saying that he was about to come home, and that as soon as he arrived he would apply himself to the work and would bring it to a speedy con-

    691
    clusion. Several more months passed, and nothing was done. It was not surprising in these circumstances that hon. Members began to show a certain amount of curiosity as to what was happening about this Committee, and they addressed some questions to the Government.
    On 24th March, 1925, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House that he had lately seen Lord Weston, who had informed him that he hoped to be able to report during the present Session. On 30th June, 1925, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to Lord Meston referring to a discussion which had taken place in the House, and asked what was the present position of the Report and how soon Lord Meston would be able to let him have it. He used the expression in the letter:
    "This matter cannot linger indefinitely."
    On 22nd July of the same year the Chancellor of the Exchequer telegraphed to Lord Meston, and on the following day, the 23rd July, Lord Meston telegraphed back:
    "My Report is now almost complete in draft, and I hope to submit it in September."
    The same day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) said, having the telegram in his possession, that he had heard from Lord Meston, that his Report was almost complete, and that he hoped to submit it in September.
    On 24th November—September having passed without bearing any fruit—Lord:Weston wrote to the Treasury:
    "I have now completed my draft of the Report. The draft as it stands represents only my own views, though I expect most of it will be accepted by a majority of my colleagues, but I cannot at present collect them to discuss it, as I have to be out of England for some weeks"—
    I believe that being out of England was an expedition that his Lordship made to India,
    "Early in the New Year, however, they will sit down to it, and there is not likely to be more delay in getting through the last stage."
    Now my unfortunate self appears on the scene. I did not have any responsibility for, or know anything about, it till 26th November, when I had gone to
    692
    the Treasury. A question was put to me, and on the information in my possession I stated in the House that I understood the chairman had now completed his draft Report, but that it had not yet been considered by the Committee. I think that in answer to a Supplementary Question that was put to me that I said I had every reason to believe that it would be completed and ready early in the new year—that is, the present year. Since that date the whole of another half-year has gone by, and I am bound to say that I have no reason to believe that we are any nearer than we were at the beginning to having a Report from that Committee, although, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in reply to the hon. Lady, the draft Report, which he has seen, is, as a matter Of fact, a comprehensive and able document. As my right hon. Friend on the same occasion said—and I do not know whether the hon. Lady complains of that—discouraging as, no doubt, the situation appears, one is reluctant absolutely to abandon hope. We hope that the Committee may be called together, and that a Report may be issued. I frankly say to the House, I can offer no explanation, and, really, I had better not make any comment on this extraordinary record.
    I think the hon. Lady was quite entitled to bring the matter before the House, and Parliament is entitled to know exactly how the matter stands. As I gave, in perfectly good faith, the answer last November, I have taken the responsibility of disclosing the whole of these facts, because I am not prepared to put off hon. Members with assurances to which I no longer attach the slightest reliance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen this Report, and has described it in this House as an able and a. comprehensive document. What mere does the hon. Lady or the House think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do? He has no power to compel the Chairman to call the Committee together. He has used persuasion and entreaties time after time as I have already described, and I can offer no explanation of why those entreaties have borne no fruit. As my hon. Friend said, the Government are now proceeding upon different lines. We have not abandoned hope, but the Government are making independent inquiries into

    693
    this subject which Lord Meston, four years ago, undertook to investigate and report upon. I hope his Report will soon be forthcoming but whether it is or not the Government having deemed it necessary to found a policy on the question of percentage grants, must be content with information from other sources. That is the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Lady. It was perfectly bona fide, and I do not think the hon. Lady was justified in complaining that my right hon. Friend had treated the matter with levity. It is quite true we may be blamed for over-forbearance, and it is not pleasant to be driven to disclose such a long series of procrastinations. I think the patience of the Government, of Parliament, and of the country—because it is a public matter—has been stretched to a point at which I should not myself be justified in any longer concealing the true facts from Parliament.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Would it be possible for the Government to publish the evidence? One part of that evidence, given by the officials of the Board of Education, has already been published. Would it be possible for the Government to make available to the public the other part of the evidence?
    Mr. McNEILL: That is a matter upon which, at the present moment at all events, I could not give any pledge. I have not seen the evidence, and do not know to what extent it has been examined, or what its value would be. At all events, it is quite a separate question from the Committee's Report. It
    694
    is a matter of policy, on which I cannot make a statement.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: After the extraordinary statement that has just been made by the Financial Secretary, is it not possible for him to make a further statement? Could he not indicate to the House that, in order to get rid of the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake to summon the other members of the Committee to discuss the evidence that is the property of the Committee, and, if they like, also the draft Report which has been submitted by the Chairman, and see that a report of some kind is brought forward? Otherwise, if this Report is to hang, like Mahomet's coffin, between earth and heaven for another four years, it will reduce the proceedings of Parliament to a farce, and the matter will become something of the nature of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera and not a matter of serious business at all. Could not the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will consider summoning the other members of the Committee together to deal with the evidence?
    Mr. McNEILL: I think the hon. Member must see that, on a Motion for the Adjournment, dealing with a much more limited question, it would be unreasonable to expect me, at half-past eleven, to make a definite pronouncement on the policy of the Government, which, really, I am not in a position to make.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

COAL TRADE DISPUTE.
  LOSSES IN WAGES AND PROFITS.
  LOSSES IN WAGES AND PROFITS.
  CARGOES (DISCHAEGE)
  CARGOES (DISCHAEGE)
  POLICE, WESTHOUGHTON.
  POLICE, WESTHOUGHTON.
  IMPORTED COAL (PRICES).
  IMPORTED COAL (PRICES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  CASUAL WORKERS (BENEFIT).
  CASUAL WORKERS (BENEFIT).
  BOROUGH (WALWORTH ROAD) EXCHANGE.
  BOROUGH (WALWORTH ROAD) EXCHANGE.
  ALIEN SEAMEN.
  ALIEN SEAMEN.
  ROYAL NAVY (SERVICE PENSIONS).
  ROYAL NAVY (SERVICE PENSIONS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  HORSES (PURCHASE).
  HORSES (PURCHASE).
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  TAX OFFICE, NEWARK.
  TAX OFFICE, NEWARK.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH DELEGATES).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH DELEGATES).
POOR LAW.
  INSTITUTIOXS (STATISTICS).
  INSTITUTIOXS (STATISTICS).
  CASUAL WARP, TREGARON.
  CASUAL WARP, TREGARON.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (FINANCIAL POSITION).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (FINANCIAL POSITION).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  HOUSING (SUBSIDY).
  HOUSING (SUBSIDY).
  IMPORTED CHEESE (REGULATIONS).
  IMPORTED CHEESE (REGULATIONS).
  SUGAR-BEET SUBSIDY.
  SUGAR-BEET SUBSIDY.
  LAND SETTLEMENT
  LAND SETTLEMENT
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (REGISTR ATIONS).
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (REGISTR ATIONS).
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  GENERAL STRIKE (STATE EXPENDITURE).
  GENERAL STRIKE (STATE EXPENDITURE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
RAMSBOTTOM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES- HEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAM- WAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CLITHEROE GAS ORDER, 1926.
PORTSMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1926.
BEDFORD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
EAST ANGLIAN ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
PETERSFIELD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
WREXHAM RURAL DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Peel I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 3rd instant be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ASHTON- UNDER-LYNE EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EALING EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF PEERESSES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill which stands in my name upon the Paper. I wish to begin by apologising to your Lordships for having had to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill twice. The first time the postponement was due to the General Strike and the second time to the fact that it coincided with the proposed visit of the President of the French Republic. Broadly speaking, the object of this Bill is to enable women to sit as far as possible on the same basis as men in your Lordships' House. As your Lordships know, it is quite a short Bill. The first clause provides that Peeresses in their own right shall be entitled to receive a Writ of Summons to Parliament and to vote as if they were men. The second clause provides that Peeresses in their own right holding Peerages in Scotland or in Ireland shall be entitled to vote at elections of Representative Peers in those two countries and also to be elected to represent those countries in your Lordships' House. The third clause proposes to put Peeresses in their own right on the same footing as Peers at the time of an Election—that is to say, they should no longer be allowed to vote.
This is the third time that it has been my privilege to bring this Bill before

569
your Lordships. We discussed it a year ago and also in the previous year. The main arguments for and against it are doubtless fresh in your Lordships' memories and I do not propose to take up very much time in dealing with its broad underlying principles. I want to be brief also because I know that there are many other Peers who wish to take part in the discussion. It is unnecessary to discuss the general principle as to whether women should sit in the Upper House because, as your Lordships will recollect, that point was really decided a year ago. Three of the principal opponents of the Bill last year, Lord Salisbury, Lord Birkenhead and Lord Merrivale, agreed that if and when your Lordships' House was reformed it was inconceivable that women should not form part of the membership of that reformed House. Accordingly it is not necessary for me to spend any time today in arguing whether or not there should be women in the Upper House. It is agreed that it is undesirable that an Upper House should exist purely on a sex basis; that is to say, by the exclusion of one of the two sexes.
The real points at issue, therefore, are: (1), whether women should be admitted here before such reform takes place; and (2), whether there is any other scheme which would give effect to this principle better than the one which I am now bringing before the House. What were the main arguments used against this Bill a year ago? The Bill would entitle, some twenty ladies to take their seats here if they desired. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, speaking against the Bill, said that it would add twenty-two hereditary legislators without the shadow of inquiry into their qualifications and so would expose the hereditary principle to contempt. But it is purely by accident that the holders of these twenty-two Peerages are (women instead of men. If they had been born men instead of women there would have been no inquiry into their qualifications. The noble and learned Lord elaborated the point and said that none of them had, so far as he knew, attempted to stand for Parliament and that none of them contemplated doing so.
When one of our colleagues dies and his son succeeds him we do not conduct an inquiry to see whether ho is qualified
570
in our opinion to take his seat here. If the twenty-two holders of these Peerages had been men they would have been entitled to come and take their seats here and there would have been no question of any inquiry into their service or ability. As a matter of fact, if there were any inquiry your Lordships would find that one of these noble Ladies has recently been called to the Bar, that another one acts very competently as the director of big financial interests, and that they are quite as qualified as an equal number of men would be. Every now and then we have additions to your Lordships' House of men who have played a big part in public life or in politics. Occasionally we have here men who have played an important and a fine part in service in the Army or Navy, or who have shown outstanding ability in business. But in the main the overwhelming number of men who come to your Lordships' House come here purely and simply because they are their father's sons. There is no inquiry into their merit or into their qualifications.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, also spoke against the Bill a year ago. He said that he opposed it on the ground that it would confer an exceptionally privileged position on a very limited class of ladies whose claims or rights were accidental. That is quite true; but so it is of all of us. We represent only a very small fraction of the total male population of the land. The overwhelming majority of us are here by accident of birth and exactly the same argument as was applied to these ladies should be applied to us. The overwhelming majority of the members of your Lordships' House undoubtedly occupy an exceptional and privileged position. What struck me most in listening to the arguments of the opponents of the Bill a year ago was that they were arguments against the hereditary principle rather than against the female sex. I do not want to raise that issue to-day, though it is a very interesting and important issue. This is not the time to raise it.
Another argument that was brought against this Bill was that the Sovereign and the Prime Minister when these Peerages were created did not contemplate that if and when they ever descended to women the holder should

571
have a seat in your Lordships' House. I agree entirely. Many of these Peerages were created in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Nobody then contemplated that there would be women in public life in the lower House or that they would occupy the great and valuable position and do the great public work that they do undoubtedly perform to-day. We have changed considerably since the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The position of women has changed completely. They have served on municipal bodies, they have been given votes, they have served in the House of Commons, and I suggest that the time is now ripe for removing this sex disqualification and distinction and including them in your Lordships' House. It is quite right to say that the Bill does intend to change the action or act of a monarch who lived several hundred years ago. Parliament has frequently done that in other and, it may be, less important matters.
Then the third main argument brought forward against the Bill was that it was being introduced by a private member. It was almost suggested that it was a crime that a private member should be dealing with this and not the Government. I am inclined to agree, but if the Government does not deal with it somebody else has got to do so. It was said in 1924 that a private member should not deal with it and that we ought to wait until a general, broad measure of reform was introduced by a Government. I ventured to say then that I did not think any scheme of reform was going to be passed by the Government. Exactly the same thing happened in 1935. I ventured to suggest then, although I was assured that a reform scheme was imminent, that we should see no such scheme. If the Government docs nothing year after year, are we also to do nothing year after year indefinitely? Surely it is an amazing theory to bring forward. We are supposed to be here to deal with matters of public interest and importance, and if the Government does not deal with them I venture to say that it is for your Lord-ships to act.
On this question of the reform of the House, I am entirely in favour of such reform of the Upper House. I am in favour of two Chambers and it is because of that very largely that I am in favour of reform. I believe that most of your
572
Lordships are also in favour of the principle of reform, but I am equally convinced that there is grave disagreement between those who are theoretically in favour of reform as to the nature and character of that reform, and I am absolutely convinced that we are not going to see any measure of reform introduced which will pass through both Houses of Parliament. I can conceive of a Bill passing through this House, I can conceive of another Bill passing through the other place, but I say quite frankly that I have seen no indication of any Bill being able to pass through both Houses. I hope I am wrong. If I am wrong, and if the Government is going to introduce and pass a measure of reform, then the passage of this Bill to-day will not do anything to hamper matters. The fact that we admit women into our midst will not, in itself, make any difference to the broader scheme of reform if and when it is brought forward.
If I am right, and if no such greater measure of reform is introduced, then by passing this Bill, by agreeing to the principle of it to-day, we shall have shown ourselves able to rise above prejudice, able to waive certain sex privileges which we undoubtedly possess to-day, and able to move with the times by recognising that the female sex is no longer a bar to service on public bodies. During the two previous discussions that we have had on this measure the word "dignity" has been frequently used. My Lords, there are two sorts of dignity. There is the false dignity which props up shams and there is a true and real sense of dignity which is associated with a big outlook, with a high sense of justice, and with a real sense of fairness. It is by an appeal to that sort of dignity that I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading and move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM,LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given notice to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, in rising to move the rejection of this Bill, I will follow the example of the noble Viscount and not detain you at any length. As the noble Viscount has rightly said, this Bill has been discussed

573
three times in the last two years and the arguments for and against it are well known to your Lordships. I will, therefore, merely give a short history and a short résumé of the arguments against the Bill. The noble Viscount has said that in the year 1200 or 1300 certain Peers were summoned by Writ to the House and that, owing to the custom of that day, the succession went in the female line as well as the male line, and the noble Lord has advanced the argument that the fact that six or seven hundred years ago ladies were not allowed to sit in this House is no reason why they should not sit in the House now.
The noble Lord has completely forgotten, however, that out of these twenty-two ladies there are a considerable number whose Peerages have been created, or who have succeeded to Peerages which have been created, in quite recent times. Take the case of Lady Rhondda. If your Lordships will take the trouble to go to the Library and read the Judgment which was given by the then Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Birkenhead, in 1922, you will see there set out the terms of the Patent under which Lady Rhondda has succeeded to her Peerage. The Patent distinctly says that Lord Rhondda and his heirs male and the heirs male of Margaret Haig Mackworth are to sit in this House. It then goes on to describe what are the privileges of Margaret Haig Mackworth in the event of her father having no heir male. She is to enjoy all the rights of a Viscountess such as have heretofore been enjoyed by a Viscountess and such as are enjoyed at the present time by a Viscountess, and therefore as no Viscountess has ever enjoyed the right of sitting in this House, she is not, to enjoy that right. The date of that Patent was not 1200 but June, 1918, only a short time ago.
These ladies, if they desire to legislate for their country, can go before an electorate and get elected to the House of Commons. My authority for that is no less a person than Lord Merrivale, who made that statement last year, and I have also looked up various statements made in the House of Commons when various Bills dealing with the admission of women to the House of Commons were passed. Although it is with great reluctance that I venture to give an opinion
574
on a legal question, I feel perfectly certain that Lord Merrivale is on this matter perfectly right. Why should these ladies wish to deprive themselves of the privilege of going to the electorate and endeavouring to win a seat in the other House? Let them qualify themselves by going to another House, if they can get in. They also, apparently, wish to deprive themselves of the right of voting for a Member of Parliament, which privilege was granted to them in 1918. It is quite evident that the House of Commons, at any rate, at that time did not contemplate that ladies would sit in this House or they would not have given them a privilege which your Lord ships do not possess.
A short time ago there was a meeting of delegates of women's associations and Lady Astor moved a resolution stating that as the House of Commons has changed very much since women members had been elected these ladies ought to be elected to this House. There was a certain lady present, who evidently has had a considerable amount of experience, who objected to this proposal, and this is what was said—
"For Heaven's sake let the men have one place in the country where they can live in peace."
I think she was a very sensible woman and if I had a vote and she stood for any constituency I should be only too pleased to vote for her. Lady Astor did not say in what way the House of Commons had changed since women had entered it, but a few days later Miss Wilkinson, who is a member of the House of Commons, did specify how it had changed. She said that now men in the House of Commons are as rude to women as they are to men. That is the change. It does not seem to me to be a very good change.
May I, before I sit down, give one reason which I think is a very good reason why your Lordships should reject this Bill? It is a quotation from a speech of a noble Viscount who has much more influence than I ever had or ever shall have in this House. I mean the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. An Amendment was moved in the House of Commons to the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Bill which would have had exactly the same result as this Bill. It was proposed that women should not

575
be disqualified for receiving a Writ of Summons to attend, sit and vote in the House of Lords. Speaking for the Government and not only for himself, this is what the noble Viscount, then Lord Robert Cecil, said:—
"I approach this Amendment with the greatest sympathy for the general point of view which has prompted its proposal. There is something very attractive about saying there is no reason in the world why women should not sit in the House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons, and prima facie I should myself agree to that as a general proposition. But when you come to look at it closely it is not quite the same thing. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, what you are doing is to say that any woman who secures the suffrage of her fellow-citizens in the constituency shall not be excluded by her sex from the House of Commons. … If you make it apply to the House of Lords you are doing rather a different thing. You are there placing, by the operation of the Bill, a certain number of women in that House. I am told there are about twenty or thirty Peeresses in their own right. They would thereupon, by the passage of this Bill, be made members of the Legislature. That is a different proposition. It may be an equally good one, but it is different from removing the disqualification to be elected by the electors of this country."
On the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Viscount said:—
"The effect of inserting women in this Bill in the way that has been suggested for the House of Lords, I am afraid, would be immediately to place a certain number of women in that House without anything further being done. That perhaps is open to some objection"—
I quite agree—
"because it means"—
I hope your Lordships will attend to these words—
"when they receive, either by succession or creation, the dignity of a Peerage, that they receive one thing which is now going to be turned into a different thins; by an Act of Parliament."
I have often envied my noble friend his gift of eloquence, and those are weighty words. I think your Lordships ought to do as members of another place did. After hearing what my noble friend said they withdrew the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will throw this Bill out.
In conclusion, all I would say is this. I will not go into the question as to whether or not the prospects of the reform of this House are very rosy. Personally I am inclined to think that there will be a reform of this House, but it is
576
only my own personal opinion, which naturally does not go for much. But let me point this out to your Lordships. I think we are all agreed that any reform of this House must necessitate the reduction of the numbers, and yet at the moment when we are thinking of reducing our numbers it is proposed that we should add to those numbers twenty-two people whose Patents do not entitle them to come here, and who, if they are desirous of coming into this House, should wait until the reform of the House has taken place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, referred to an observation that had frequently been made that it ought to have been introduced by the Government. There is one great difficulty in the way, and that is that the Government are not agreed upon this subject. I believe that has been the case with previous Governments which have had to deal with the question of women's enfranchisement in various forms, and in consequence many of the steps in connection with women's enfranchisement have had to be taken on the motion of unofficial members, either of this House or of the other House.
We are asked to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and I have always understood that on the Second Reading what has mainly to be considered is the underlying principle of the Bill. I venture very respectfully to differ from my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam when he treats the Bill as though it were mainly for the purpose of enabling some twenty ladies who are now Peeresses in their own right to sit in this House. He incidentally said that it was a hardship upon them because it would deprive them of certain privileges, such as that of sitting in the other House and voting for Members of Parliament. He will forgive me if I remind him that he and I have both voluntarily abandoned those privileges. But I do not think that this is the real principle of this Bill. I think it was more accurately stated by my noble friend Lord Astor. He said that

577
it was to remove the disqualification of women as such for sitting in your Lordships' House. That seems to me to be the underlying principle if you read the first clause, which is the most important clause. It simply says that a woman being a holder in her own right of any Peerage shall be entitled to receive a Writ of Summons notwithstanding that there is nothing in the Patent creating that Peerage which expressly confers upon her the right to sit. That is the main purpose—to remove the sex disqualification.
I agree with him that the main purpose has not much been contested either in the debates last year, or the year before, or by my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam. I will come to one solitary observation that he made on the subject a little later on. Two main objections have been raised. In the first place, it has been said that this ought to wait for the reform of the House of Lords. I confess that I do not feel so pessimistic as to the reform of the House of Lords as my noble friend Lord Astor. I hope and believe that the reform of the House of Lords will not be long delayed. I am very much in favour of it myself, but I cannot see how the passage of this Bill will in any way hinder or obstruct that reform, or interfere with it in the least. My noble friend quoted the observations which were made in the debates last year to the effect that in any reformed House of Lords women would have their place. I agree with him. I have talked to a great many schools of reform and that is one of the very few points on which they are all agreed—that women would naturally come into any reformed Second Chamber. Therefore, to put them into this Chamber, would in no way interfere one way or the other with any reform which would be carried out. Moreover, though I firmly believe that reform of the House of Lords will come to pass, it is impossible to say, unless you have the gift of prophecy, when that will take place. The sooner the better as far as I am concerned. But we all know the accidents that befall Parliamentary projects and it may well be that it will be postponed for some little time. If it be right—and of course that is the question—that the disqualification of women should be removed, why should we wait to remove it an uncertain time pending the intro-
578
duction of a general measure for the reform of your Lordships' House? I cannot think that that is a sound argument for rejecting the Second Reading of this Bill.
Then there is another argument upon which my noble friend Lord Banbury very much relied. He was good enough to quote some observations that I made on the subject in the House of Commons when a Bill for admitting women to that House was being considered. I wish to thank my noble friend for his great courtesy in letting me know that he was going to quote these observations. He gave me the somewhat doubtful pleasure of re-reading them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not deny that there is some force in the objection. The objection, as I understand it, is this, that whereas your Lordships hold your seats in this House by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative either in favour of your ancestors or in favour of yourselves, it is proposed by this Bill that certain ladies who have Peerages already but do not sit in this House by law—because we must take that to be the law—should be given, by Act of Parliament, seats In this House without the exercise of the Prerogative, with all the safeguards which the exercise of the Prerogative involves. I think there is a certain force in that. I remember being struck with it last year and, even before my noble friend had excavated my observations in the other House, I had already come to the conclusion that something ought to be done to meet that criticism.
But it does not touch the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is removing the disqualification of women. The question is whether in doing that you ought to go so far as to give, through this Bill, seats in this House to ladies who are already in the enjoyment of a Peerage. I think myself it would be a better plan to say that they should only be entitled to sit if the King, by Letters Patent, had signified his pleasure that they should do so—that is to say, had completed the grant of a Patent which he had made to them by expressly saying that this or that woman should be entitled to sit. I believe something to that effect would be very easy to insert; in fact, I have gone so far as to make an attempt—an amateurish attempt, no doubt—to draft a clause, and I see no difficulty in

579
inserting a clause to that effect, which would remove that objection altogether. There may be other ways of meeting the objection. It would not be right for me to discuss the details of that Amendment on the present occasion. It is not a question of principle. It does not touch the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is to remove the sex disqualification. Whether you ought to apply that to the women who have already Peerages is a question for the Committee and ought to be dealt with in the Committee. The principle is the important thing which we have to settle on the Second Reading.
I venture very respectfully to say that on that principle it is not really reasonable to have any question at the present time. The question of women's political emancipation is really res judicata. It has been determined from the Throne down to a parish council. Every political position is open to women except a seat in this House. They have sat for years on the local government bodies, they have sat now for some considerable time in the House of Commons, and, as we know, they have sat upon the Throne from the very earliest period of our Constitution. I do not think that there is a single member of the House of Commons who would bring in a Bill to take from women any one of those qualifications. The opinion of the people of this country is, I venture very respectfully to say, settled on that point—that women ought to have political enfranchisement. I hope I am not trespassing on the respect which I owe to your Lordships' House if I say that I have some doubt whether it is the function of this Chamber to set itself against the established policy which has been accepted by the people of this country. Therefore, on the broad principle, I should submit that the desirability of giving to women this last political position is really not arguable.
Is there any special ground why, though they are fit for every other political position, they are unfit for seats in this House? Is there anything special about membership of this House that is particularly male and not female? I have heard it said that women ought not to go into politics because it makes too great a demand on their physical strength. I think a woman would be a very weakly creature if she could not stand the physical demand made by
580
membership of your Lordships' House. It is true that a novel argument was addressed to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Banbury. He said: "For Heaven's sake let the men have one place … where they can live in peace." That seems to me an astonishing doctrine and an astonishing defence for the House of Lords; it has all the merits of complete novelty. I venture to say that the argument is all the other way, that though there may be a question whether it is desirable that women should sit in the House of Commons, though there may be a question whether it is desirable that they should be subjected to the rough and tumble of a contested election, though there may be a question whether it is desirable that they should sit in the House of Commons till two or three o'clock in the morning and endure the very severe strain which membership of the House of Commons undoubtedly imposes upon them, I cannot think that any of those arguments apply to membership of your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships have not, perhaps, so great a power over legislation as you once had, but you still have one great power, one great function, which everybody admires in your Lordships' House, and that is the power of giving advice to the Government and to the country by persons well qualified, speaking in the calmness and serenity that prevails in this House and putting into a common stock the fruit of your experience and knowledge. Surely this is a thing which women can do as well as men. There have been women in the past, and there are women now, who have very special knowledge, very special qualifications for giving advice on great social and educational questions to the people of this country—women whom it would be absurd to ask to undergo the difficulties of membership of the other House, but whose advice it is a great pity to lose in the best interests of the country. It is because I feel very strongly that it would be desirable in the interests of the country, in the interests of the House and in the interests of the women that they should have an opportunity, if His Majesty on the advice of His Ministers so thinks fit, to speak in your Lordships' House and take part in your Lordships' debates, that I hope you will give a Second Reading to this Bill, reserving

581
full liberty to put such Amendments into it as will guard it from infringing in any way the Constitution of this country or the Prerogatives of the King.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I rise to follow the noble Viscount who has just spoken in support of the Bill. I would rather have heard some criticism upon it first, but as the noble Lord who was to have spoken before me does not appear to be here I shall detain your Lordships only for a very short time. This is now the third time that Lord Banbury has opposed this measure. He has really advanced no new reasons, excepting small ones, for his opposition, and those he has given have been already disposed of in two former debates on the subject. I cannot help suspecting that the real reason for his opposition can be summed up in the old rhyme:—
"The reason why I cannot tell:
I do not like thee, Dr. Fell."
Politically speaking the noble Lord does not like the idea of Peeresses sitting in your Lordships' House, though for my part I cannot see that this is a particularly logical reason why they should not do so, and I can hear my noble friend saying, if be thinks out the point, "Thank God, this country is not governed by logic."
He gave two reasons. One was that the ladies should first of all qualify in the other place before they were admitted here. I think they have qualified well, and so far as it is possible to do so. But how are they to get in here after they are qualified if he bangs and bars the door in their faces? It is hardly logical. Another reason that he gave was that a certain member of another place stated that the men were rude to them and that was a very strong reason why Lord Banbury thought the ladies should not be admitted to this House. He forgets that on the first occasion he spoke against this measure he said he did not wish women here because they exercised too much fascination. Perhaps he will tell us which is the reason.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: What I said was that Lady Astor had said that the House of Commons had changed in the time she had been there. She did not say how it had changed. Miss Wilkinson said the same thing, that it had changed, and she gave her interpretation of how it had changed. It has nothing to do with me.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I was in another place with the noble Lord and I do not think he always suffered from over-politeness to his opponents. It was said about the House of Commons that the men were not prepared to be led away through fascination, but were quite prepared to stand up to the ladies and say what they thought. I think it will be the same thing here. Lord Banbury's principal point, and in my opinion the best one he has advanced, is that the whole thing is illegal—to use a general term—and he holds that Peeresses are expressly barred by their Patents upon sex grounds. If their Patents definitely bar them for that reason no one will suggest in this or any other Bill that that bar should be removed. The Patent may be made out specifically to admit of males only sitting in this House and if any such special bar in any special Patent of this nature exists, it would, of course, not be affected by this Bill; but such a special bar would not concern the general position so far as it affects other Patents not so barred, and the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act should surely entitle the holders of such Patents to sit in this House.
That the proposal in general made by the noble Viscount in this Bill is not against the law, and that it is possible for this House to pass it, is borne out by the fact that a number of our most prominent legal experts are here to-day discussing the subject. If the thing were legally impossible they surely would not be wasting their valuable, time and ours in arguments that were bound to be fruitless. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, then advanced the theory that it is a matter affecting the Royal Prerogative. But as it does not touch the Patent, he is, I contend, in error according, at least, to the views held by more than one legal expert in this House. It is true that the present noble and learned occupant of the Woolsack expressed some doubt on this point in a former debate, but I think he also admitted that it was a matter of trial and that the only way to find it out was to pass the Bill at this stage and raise, the point of privilege at a later stage before it became law. Further, the noble Lord has raised the point that this should not be a Private Member's Bill because it infringes on the Royal Prerogative.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I did not say that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Not to-day. I think it is one of the arguments against the Bill which the noble Lord has thought fit to drop. It is used-up ammunition, which did not get home. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, easily disposed of this point last year. In 1924 Lord Darling pointed out that four Queens had been members of your Lordships' House, which at least shows that there has been some precedent. The noble and learned Earl, the Secretary of State for India, last year complained of the extreme impropriety of a private member introducing this Bill. I am afraid that the introducer of the Bill, from his action to-day, is still quite unrepentant. Be that as it may, the noble and learned Earl did not say it was ultra vires and as it has been introduced again by a private member, I feel sure that the noble and learned Earl will agree that we who support the measure have as much right to do so as he has to oppose it.
I would respectfully ask your Lordships how a measure that does not touch Patents, or the rights of the Crown, but only enables people, if their Patents admit, of it, to exercise their rights irrespective of the bar of sex under the general provisions of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, which governs the whole country outside your Lordships' House, and which they would be able to do if such a bar did not exist, can be infringing the Prerogative of the Crown. Surely, if the sex disqualification is removed, as it can be without affecting the rights of the Crown, the Peeresses' prerogative to claim a Writ remains just in the same way as that of Peers does. In these days of the removal of sex disqualification one might almost say that by maintaining the sex disqualification in your Lordships' House not only is a special disqualification being done to the Peerage at large but the Crown is actually prevented from making the best use of the services of those on whom Peerages have been or may be conferred on account of what is now a purely arbitrary disqualification. Therefore, so long as the disqualification is maintained, the Crown is actually, one might say, prevented from making the full use of its own Prerogative.
584
I naturally hesitate to cross swords with so learned a legal expert and so skilled a debater as the Secretary of State for, India, but when he advances the theory that when Baronies by Writ were first instituted it never entered the head of the authors—and this has been repeated with doubtful rhetoric, if I may say so, by Lord Banbury—that women would ever claim the right to sit, it appears to me to be just as logical to say that tanks in warfare are illegal and must never be talked about because the inventors of barbed wire entanglements never foresaw the genesis of the tank. Equally so, I am prepared to admit that the idea of women sitting in Parliament had never entered into the heads of those who recommended that in cases of special remainder women should carry on some special Peerage, but that surely does not mean that if there were no sex disqualification these posthumous honours to the memory of great men would never have been granted or never will be granted again.
The noble and learned Earl stated that he could visualise the time when sex would be no bar, when Peeresses might be created with a right to sit in your Lordships' House, and he could think of no logical argument against it. So he is prepared to see and possibly accept an avalanche, if I may so put it, of women, into your Lordships' House at some later date, because he can think of no argument against it, but is terrified of the effect of a small snowball such as is suggested by the noble Lord who brought in this Bill. It seems to mo a repetition of the saying about the gnat and the camel. Though it may be a matter of impropriety for a private member to introduce the Bill there is certainly no impropriety on our part if we accept it so long as the principle is good, and if the principle is good and right, and if justice is not being done to a certain group of ladies—or shall I say certain ladies in a group of ladies?—I cannot see how your Lordships' House can refuse to remove the disability now instead of having to wait for a time of general change when a far bigger question will be dealt with, a time that may or may not mature and in any case is not immediate.
I think we may pass over the other argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, that women will not lend

585
dignity to this House, except to thank him for the only little touch of humour that has been contributed in the three debates on the subject. As to his statement that women were unfit to take part in our deliberations, it does seem difficult to me to argue that when a woman is not debarred by reason of her sex from being Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, as a reigning Queen, from controlling all your Statutes so far as is possible under a limited Monarchy, a woman is unfit to give; her opinion on a measure affecting the welfare of children which is being discussed in your Lordships' House. May I say in conclusion that so far as Scotland is concerned the matter will not affect us because—I have always thought, it an unjust act—we have only Representative Peers in this House and the matter would be in their own hands whether women were returned or not. However much some of us may wish, for quite different reasons, not to see women sitting in this House, I cannot see how, when they make a claim to do so, we can fairly and justly refuse it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should have preferred to wait a little longer in the hope that some more voices would be raised against this Bill. I say "in the hope' in order that I might have something tangible to deal with. Up to the present time the only person who has condemned this Bill is Lord Banbury and he has seemed in the position of Athanasius contra mundum.
LORD NEWTON: Oh no, not at all.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am referring to the debate. When we come to the Division Lobby it will appear different. We had a very interesting speech from Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, a speech in which he intimated, what one would expect, that the Government was divided on this question and therefore did not wish to handle it; that they would prefer to deal with it when the reform of the House of Lords took place—a reform on which in principle they were agreed, but unhappily he could not furnish us with any indication of what that reform would be.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It would have been quite out of order to discuss it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have no doubt it would have been quite out of order, but it would have been very interesting, and we are so easy-going in the observance of our Rules here that we should have listened with great patience to the noble Viscount if he had broken our Rules. But we are not likely to hear for some time what form the reform of the House of Lords is to take or how the copious elimination threatened is to be put into operation. At least here are the women who will have to be somehow included. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to this, that we are not dealing with anything like the same question as that which came before the Committee for Privileges in this House two or three years ago. Your Lordships may remember that at that time there were two Committees for Privileges, one which reported in favour of the right of Lady Rhondda and the other which reported against it. I was a member of both Committees. I took a very active part and voted in favour of the recognition of her rights to a Writ in the first case; but in the second case we were overwhelmed by numbers and the matter never got any further. That is over and done with.
What we are discussing now is not the technical case which arose before the old Committee for Privileges. We are now concerned with the broad question of principle. We are not discussing the merely technical question of whether the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919 failed to cover the ground, but we are discussing the broader case, which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, discussed. He came to the conclusion that this Bill ought to receive a Second Reading. He was in favour of it. He thought the arguments against it were not arguments which at this time of day ought to be accepted. Women have been admitted, he said truly, to every legislative asembly in the country of whatever order, with the exception of your Lordships' House, and he asked how, in face of the fact that they were in the Commons and in the face of public opinion, it was possible to maintain the principle that they should not be included here.
A more admirable speech upon the broad principle it would be impossible to hear. But then he came to something from which I must express my dissent.

587
He said that he would like to make the exercise of the Prerogative in the way of granting a Writ of Summons a reality, that he would like to regulate it. As I worked out in my head what he meant, it came to this: that it should come within the power of Ministers to advise the Sovereign not to grant a Writ. If the noble Viscount did not mean that, I am very much puzzled to know what he did mean. As I understood him, he wanted some control over the issue of a Writ.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sorry that I failed to make myself plain. What I said was that, with respect to the women who are now the possessors of Peerages but have received those Peerages in circumstances which do not give them the right to sit in your Lordships' House, I thought it was reasonable to say that the King's pleasure should be required as to whether they should have a Writ. Once they have had their Writ, of course, they and their successors would be entitled to their Writ; and in any future Peerage created they would have the Writ as a matter of course, as a man does to-day. But since it is argued that in these cases they were not given the right to sit, I suggested that it was right that the Prerogative of the Crown should be preserved in that respect and that the pleasure of the King should be taken as to whether he desired a Writ to be issued.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Then it applies only to the twenty Peerages at present in question. I do not think that this makes it any better, certainly from the point of view that I wish to submit to the House. The right to a Writ is a right which the law recognises and which appertains to the status of a Peer. It is not in the discretion of the Crown, nor would it be in the discretion of the Crown advised by Ministers. It is a legal right, existing at Common Law and well established, and it is impossible to go back on it without a Statute. That was settled by your Lordships' House exactly three hundred years ago in the Bristol case. At that time the King refused a Writ to the person who had the status of a Peer as Lord Bristol, and your Lordships' House struck against the Crown and would conduct no business. The end was that the Crown had to give in, and since then it has
588
been a recognised part of the Common Law of this country that everybody who has the status of a Peerage is entitled to a Writ.
What prevented the present set of Peeresses from sitting was not that fact at all but the fact that it was held that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, had not repealed the disability which the Common Law until recently imposed, preventing any woman from fulfilling a public function. That is quite another thing. That principle is repealed in terms by the Act of 1919, and it was that disability which prevented a woman from having a seat in this House and also, of course, from receiving a Writ. The purpose of this Bill is a very plain one. It is the broad principle to which the noble Viscount alluded in his speech—namely, to get rid of the disability which the law imposes upon women to enter this House and sit in it. As the noble Viscount himself pointed out, that is a disability which cannot be maintained any longer in the face of public opinion.
LORD MERRIVALE: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment to ask him whether he will tell the House if in his opinion the passage of this Bill would or would not entitle the present holders of Peerages, who are disqualified at this time by reason of sex, to sit in this House?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have not really considered closely the terms of this Bill, but, so far as I have been able to see, I think it would. It simply gets rid of the effect of the Common Law disability altogether and sweeps away the fact that it was held, rightly or wrongly, by the Committee for Privileges that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919—
LORD MERRIVALE: Then it makes nineteen new English Peeresses?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Which that Act still maintained. This Bill sweeps that away and declares in terms that a woman may sit in this House, so that I do not think there is any serious doubt that the Bill would be operative to that extent. But the point is that we are dealing today with the broad question of principle, of which Lord Cecil of Chelwood spoke with approval, and it is very difficult to

589
see how your Lordships can be justified in putting yourselves in opposition to the advance of public opinion and to the plain decision of Parliament that women are to take their part like men in the deliberations of public bodies.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' pardon for intruding in this debate upon the second discussion of this matter, but the ground upon which the promoters of the Bill are now presenting it to the House has been, I will not say shifted, but sought to be shifted. My noble and learned friend opposite, in the very frank statement that he made, said that in his judgment this Bill if it becomes an Act will add to the membership of this House the nineteen ladies who at present are not entitled to sit in this House by reason of the terms of their Patents. That is the fundamental fact in this discussion, and for my part I have regretted to see the degree of ingenuity, rather than ingenuousness, with which it has been sought to shift the ground from the consideration of that question and to bring it to a ground either of principle or of sentiment, upon which that question does not depend. It is one thing to say that in the change of times it is desirable that women who are qualified to render public service in this House should be brought here by the exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown under the advice of Ministers of the Crown. I should feel ashamed of myself if I offered a word in opposition to a proposal that the Prerogative of the Crown should be enlarged so that, if a woman can render public service in this House, she should be called to sit here.
But that is not the question which is in discussion here. The noble Viscount, in moving the Bill, very frankly recognised this. He said that the disputed claims of these nineteen ladies did not differ in point of principle from the right of every Peer to sit in this House, apart from the question of sex. The noble Viscount said that these ladies were disqualified by sex, and he identified them. I was at pains last night, when perhaps I ought to have been otherwise occupied, to examine the list of Peeresses in their own right. I do not believe that the Peeresses in question are seeking the promotion of this Bill. I will not deal with the names of those Peeresses one by one,
590
but I will say this: If any Prime Minister in any time of which living men have knowledge had made it known that he had gone to the Sovereign and had proposed that this House should be amplified in number by the addition of nineteen ladies possessing the qualifications of the ladies in question, he could not have remained in office as Prime Minister, it would have been so preposterous.
It is irksome to discuss a personal topic of that kind with regard to ladies of ancient race and high reputation, and with all the qualities which ought to protect them from discussion, but let me refer without individual reference to two or three topics. Some of the noble ladies in question are wives of members of this House. Has anybody considered whether it is desirable, in the interests of the patrician principle, or of the aristocracy of England, that the phenomenon should be presented of the presence side by side of a Peer of comparatively modern creation and a Peeress whose Peerage dates from the Edwards or the early Henrys, or whether they should sit side by side, or pair, or deal with problems which arise in legislation Conceive for a moment a Bill to enfranchise nineteen noble ladies, without consideration of that kind of problem.
Another topic. Several of these noble ladies are holders of Patents of Peerage in which there are special remainders. By the terms of their Patents they are ineligible to sit in this House. Their ineligibility is prescribed in the Patent. Here, without any consideration, apparently, of the anomaly of dealing with the matter in this way, the noble Viscount comes gaily to the House and says: "Well, they will be as good Peers as the rest of your Lordships." He says there is really no difference; that it is a come-by-chance matter whether the holder of a Peerage, modern or ancient, a holder by succession, comes to this House. That is not the public judgment upon the hereditary principle, I believe. One reason why I am opposed to this Bill is that I cannot help thinking that it is as if this House should say to the Commons of England: The hereditary principle is said to have gone out of date; well, take notice of this, that without any consideration of qualification we add nineteen ladies because their ancestors in the time of the Henrys and the Edwards were

591
added to the members of this House. I venture to say to your Lordships that that is not the way in which a grave constitutional question should be dealt with.
Then my noble friend below me said you could amend the Bill. How did he suggest it should be amended? By empowering the Sovereign to grant new Patents, to issue Letters Patent to the noble ladies in question, so that they might sit here. That is not the proposal in this Bill. When some member of your Lordships' House proposes to your Lordships a Bill which will enable the Crown to select ladies to perform legislative functions, a question arises upon which there may be division of opinion, but as to which I have an opinion which differs totally from the opinion that I hold with regard to this Bill. Why does my noble friend Viscount Cecil of Chelwood trim up the Bill so that it appears to be what it is not? I suspect the object is to catch votes which would not be given for the Bill as it is. Why is it that noble Lords say that it is the principle of the sitting of women in this House upon which they insist? Why is that reiterated by almost every noble Lord who speaks in favour of the Bill, when in fact the operation of the Bill would be of a totally different kind? It is reiterated for the same purpose—namely, to disarm opposition to this particular proposal, to shift the ground of debate, and to induce members to vote for the Second Reading who could not by any reasonable inducements be persuaded to vote that the nineteen ladies in question should, by the fiat of Parliament, be seated in this House. I have taken up your Lordships' time too long, but I venture to reiterate in what I have said my opposition on many grounds of political principle to the Second Heading of the Bill, which is an abuse of the power to propose political reform.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I have listened to this debate with great interest, in the hope that some serious argument might have been advanced in favour of the substantive proposal contained in this Bill. I am bound to make it plain that I have heard the debate with deep disappointment. I did really suppose that when a proposal had been so clearly and repeatedly con-
592
sidered in this House, and had been disposed of by the collective sense of the House more than once, if it were to be re-introduced it would at least have been reinforced by some new argument in its favour. Listening as I have done to almost the whole of this debate, I am unaware of any single new argument which could deflect, or which ought to deflect, the judgment of this House from its previously announced conclusions.
We have, indeed, had the advantage of hearing the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, propose the Second Reading of this Bill. It has been supported by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. I examine a little the pretensions of these Peers, both of them, if they will allow me to say so without undue social pretension, friends of my own, and I look at their position, and I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is very adequately represented in the House of Commons. No topic is ever raised there which lacks an eloquent voice. Then I look at the case of the noble Duke. The noble Duke can take perfectly good care of himself in this House, as also can the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and Her Grace the Duchess is one of the most graceful orators in the House of Commons; and I do not know exactly where these noble Lords place themselves. It seems to me that their object is to get the best of both worlds or of both Houses, and I do not know whether, if the proposal is acccepted, Lady Astor will be here or the Duchess there. I am sure, however, that we shall not lack representation of either of these noble families if these proposals are carried.
There is another consideration which is of some weight. Are we or are we not, in the vote we are about to give, anticipating the decision which we shall later necessarily take as to the reconstitution of this House? It is within the knowledge of most of your Lordships that the Cabinet Committee, after long months of inquiry, has presented a Report to the Cabinet, and upon that Report a decision must within a reasonable compass of time be reached. Does it appear to anybody to be a sensible thing that, anticipating that reform, we should not merely register an abstract resolution that women shall be entitled to sit in this House but that we shall say of twenty-five women that those women

593
shall at once and in this brief interim period be allowed to take their seats in this House?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, President of the Divorce Division, of whom I can say without the risk of being misunderstood that he has been much exposed to the sex, has exhibited the absurdity of this argument in. a very plain way. He said: Supposing it was left, as it ought to be left, to the Prerogative of the Crown, acting upon the advice of his responsible Ministers, to nominate twenty-five women in England at this moment to become members of the House of Lords, do you suppose that there is one single lady of those who are on the list upon which we are to pronounce to-day who would be nominated? I say without disparagement to any one of those ladies that it is within the knowledge of every one of your Lordships who is going to vote upon this question of principle in a few minutes, that there is no one of those ladies who would be nominated by any competent tribunal to sit in this or any other legislative assembly.
If that is not too exaggerated a claim—and I am sure it is not—surely the whole question is concluded. If it is desired to reinforce the debates of your Lordships by the presence of ladies; if it is so desired—I beg to doubt whether it is desired—but if it is, it can be done in a perfectly rational fashion, not in this irregular piecemeal fashion. It can be done in this way. I should assume that any intelligent reform of your Lordships' House would greatly enlarge the area of selection. I say quite plainly I have always been a pessimist in relation to schemes of reform of this House, because my experience of this House, comparatively short as it has been, has fortified me in the conclusion which I formed long ago that this House is very well content with itself as at present constituted, and will listen sympathetically but reluctantly to specific proposals which would very greatly alter its Constitution.
But supposing that I am wrong in that, supposing that your Lordships are prepared to admit of a far-reaching scheme of reform which will even in an unhappy moment admit the other sex to our counsels, upon what basis ought that selection to be made? The matter would appear to me to be too clear for
594
argument. The constituency from which you must select women representatives, if indeed we are to have them in this House, must be the whole constituency of the population of this country. They must not be limited to twenty-five ladies who by the accident of an accident occupy a particular position. And I hope without indelicacy that I may be allowed to examine what that position is and what the history of that position is. I can do it—though I rarely speak with dogmatism—I can do it with the confidence which springs from dogmatic certainty.
These ladies were made Peeresses in their own right for a reason which, from one angle of view, is creditable to their sex, but from another angle is an immense recognition of the superiority of the other sex. They were made Peeresses in their own right for one reason and for one reason only, that there was no prospect of an heir male unless they were made Peeresses, in other words the hope was founded upon their physical fecundity, it was their channel to their position as Peeresses in their own right. And observe the necessary and logical reactions of that view. The only reason that they were made Peeresses in their own right, being women, was the obscure and not certain hope that they might bring males into the world, and many of them, I am bound to say, have disappointed that reasonable expectation.
I am not discussing the general sex problem at all, I am prepared to meet the claim that women in a reformed House of Lords should have the same right in equal conditions with men. When that claim is made I no longer oppose it because I recognise, as a noble Lord earlier in the debate said, that that cause is lost, and I will not fight it if and when, in the general scheme of the reconstitution of this House, it is revived. But I am dealing with the case of twenty-five individual ladies. We are asked now that we should admit them to this House when nobody pretends that any one of them would be elected, either by an exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown or by a democratic vote in the constituencies. Above all, do not let us confuse ourselves with a large general sex problem. Sex problems are always tiresome, and they always provoke controversy. It is very easy for anybody who recommends this Bill to adopt the

595
kind of stupid argument which says: "Are we going to be the only place in the country that does not admit women?" Well, I am not sure that if we took even that attitude it would be extraordinarily unpopular. But let us put it upon a rather broader basis. We are not placing the controversy upon the line that this is the last place in the whole country which disputes the claims of women. Let no one use that false argument. It is absolutely unfair in relation to the decision which we are called upon, and which I hope we intend, to take.
In common with every reformer of this House whose conversation I have had the opportunity of hearing, I say plainly and frankly that if this House is reformed, if you ever obtain the consent of this Government or any other Government to the reform of the House of Lords, we must prepare ourselves to confront great changes, but I am entitled to say that in this matter in my judgment we should make a great mistake if we thought that the complete reform of this House was likely to come very suddenly or very swiftly. I have gone through all the phases of this struggle. I see the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, opposite to me. I heard him thirty-three years ago in the Oxford Union, resisting a proposal to reform the House of Lords. I think he has spent all the rest of his public life making speeches in the opposite sense. I remember myself assailing—I fear with much less than the respect that I owed to him—my noble friend Lord Salisbury, the Leader of the House, because he delayed that reform of the House of Lords, which, when I was a Coalition Minister, he had assailed me with eloquent contempt for postponing. I have gone through a great deal of this, and I have come to the conclusion that we may, or may not, be reformed. We may be reformed earlier, or we may be reformed later, but it is going to be a very difficult business, and it cannot be done without our consent.
Observe that a very considerable qualification is introduced in the whole discussion by that indisputable circumstance. I know exactly all the existing proposals, because I happen to be a member of the Cabinet Committee, but I do not discuss them here further than to say that it is possible there may be a proposal that some portion of your Lord-
596
ships' House may be recruited as the result of election. This is where the ladies have their real chance. If and when the House is reformed, let them go to the constituencies and point out how many topics there are on which women are better able to give good advice than men. Let them establish upon a democratic basis their right to sit in this House, and—I know not when the moment will come—if and when the moment comes when the Government proposes and your Lordships accept the proposal that women shall be available for membership of this House, how instructive, how educational it will be that they should put their claim forward on its merits, on the sex merits—let us be perfectly plain—and how important it would be that a number of ladies should sit in this House. If they can persuade these vast and unknown constituencies, which alone can support an election to this House, if we ever get so far—if they can persuade those constituencies, with what pleasure we shall welcome them to this House, not as nominees of accident, not as merely the accidental conduit pipes established in the hope of making permanent male succession, but we should recognise them as women who, on their merits, had made good. On that basis I say we will welcome them to this House.
But until that day comes is there anything to be said for this proposal? Surely every argument that has been used shows the absurdity of this. We have heard this House described, I think quite unjustly, as a caste. I think, having regard to the most generous reinforcement of the aristocratic principle which the last fifteen years have afforded, we might at least have been protected from that taunt. But if we are a caste what is there to be said of the caste that is to be created, the feminine caste that is to be created, by the proposals of this Bill? I will enter a protest on behalf of the ladies who are affected and who are to be made into a kind of special caste. Who are they? As I have said, they are ladies who were made Peers in their own right, many of their Patents of Peerage most expressly saying that in no circumstances must they be anything but what they are, and in the face of that, having been appointed for a special purpose, we are told that now, when the reform of this House is the subject of active dis-

597
cussion, we are to take these twenty-five ladies and say to them that they are to be for all time, as far as I can see, a caste to be enabled to take part in the debates in your Lordships' House.
I say plainly that is the decision we are taking. I listened, as I almost always listen, with deep respect to the observations made by my noble friend Lord Cecil on this point. In my judgment they were less lucid than I generally find his observations. I do not even know that I understood them, but if I understood them aright he wishes to ask the King to exercise some discretion. It will be very disagreeable to any Sovereign to exercise any discretion among people of the opposite sex. I should think that it was a most infelicitous proposal that such a responsibility should be placed upon the Sovereign of this country. Nobody can say the House of Lords is reactionary in this matter. When such a reform of this House is recommended by the Government and the country as will afford women a place in this House we will agree, but we will never agree prematurely, before those reforms are recommended, to a special privilege being given to a small and illogically-constituted privileged class. We are told that we are in this House rather unsympathetic to the claims of women. I respectfully disagree. It may be only a symbolical circumstance that as I happened to come into this House for the purpose of making an inadequate contribution to the debate I looked at the windows in the Prince's Chamber. I know not how many windows there are, but I saw that at least six were devoted to the wives of King Henry VIII. It cannot, at least, be said that we have failed to commemorate conspicuous women in our history, and their commemoration marks the admiration of the House for conjugal virtue, however imperfectly repaid.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the subject of this Bill has been before your Lordships now, after recurring periods, for over seven years and it would be surprising if a Bill which purports to base itself upon a general principle of justice and fairness as between men and women should be able, after the lapse of seven years, to discover any novel argument in its support. The novelty of the argu-
598
ments in this matter has at last been, reserved for the opponents of the measure and I am bound to say that they have struck me as being without that charm which is generally supposed to be attached to things that are new.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, say that this Bill was an abuse of the procedure of the House. I heard him say that no great constitutional question ought to be dealt with in this way, although I have yet to learn by what means constitutional questions are to be approached except through the medium of Acts of Parliament and Bills passed through both Houses. The noble Lord omitted to tell us what was the method that he suggested when he devoted himself to his invective and said that this Bill was an abuse of the procedure of your Lordships' House. That struck me as an unpleasant, even if it were a new, argument, but I am bound to say that some arguments that have been used by my noble friend the Earl of Birkenhead struck me as even more strange. He once more repeated that when this House was to be reformed the right of women to sit in it would no longer be challenged, and he said that therefore the right course is to wait until then. And then, so far as I understand, they are not to be entitled to sit by virtue of any hereditary privilege, but they are to be entitled to sit by virtue of being elected by the constituencies. I can only tell him that if his reform of the House of Lords is going to proceed upon any such discriminative, unjust and selective basis as that it will at least have one sincere and humble opponent.
But in truth the greater part of the argument was devoted to the suggestion that we ought to wait. It was suggested that the time is very near when this House will be reformed and these ladies can wait until that is accomplished. Is the time so near? The most remarkable thing about the reform of this House is that nobody seems to seek for it except the members of this House themselves. They are always passing Resolutions and calling upon the Government to come down and reform them. Yet there are probably not three members in this House who agree together as to the way in which the reform is to be effected. The noble Earl, who was promising us that this reform is to be carried out,

599
allowed us to believe that it is not going to secure the valuable support of his ardent convictions because he observed in his speech that the House was very well content with itself as at present constituted. What a pleasant frame of mind in which to introduce a Bill which is to secure that it shall be constituted in some other manner! As long ago as 1919, when this matter was again being discussed before your Lordships' this same argument was used and the noble Earl said:—
"I entertain no doubt whatever that the intention is sincerely entertained by the Government at a comparatively early date to introduce proposals with the object of reforming the Second Chamber. Such hopes have been sincerely entertained in the past and have proved delusive. I hope they will in this case not prove delusive."
That happened seven years ago.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: You will remember that the Government was defeated very shortly afterwards.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have very pleasant recollections of your Government being defeated in this House. Are you sure it will not be defeated again?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: No.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is because of that postponed reform which may never be realised that you are going to deny to these women a right which they would inevitably possess if they were not disqualified by their sex. That lies at the foundation of the whole of this Bill. In some of the speeches the fact has been overlooked that the claim of these ladies to sit originally arose under the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, which provided that sex should not bar a woman from exercising any public functions. The whole question was whether their right to sit in this House was a public function, which the removal of their disability would permit them to exercise. Lord Banbury said it was so plain that it was not that it was hardly possible to consider the other side. The present Lord Chief Justice of England thought it was so plain the other way that he would not argue against it and there were at least two very eminent and very learned Lords of Appeal and one ex-Lord Chancellor who took the same view. Although I did not take the same view, because in
600
my view the construction of the Statute did not permit it, it really is not dealing fairly with the question to say that it is so plain that these people are excluded that no person with the least intelligence could urge that they were entitled to sit. The truth is that this Bill is designed to provide that which a Committee of this House decided had in fact been omitted from the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act.
That is the whole foundation of our scheme. It has nothing to do with selecting these twenty ladies and saying that they are the ones of all women whom one would most like to sit. Do your Lordships really flatter yourselves that you are of all men those most desired to sit? The truth is that for good or for evil, and it probably has weight both ways, the right of sitting in this House is removed from selection. There is no such thing as personal selection except in so far as Peers are from time to time created by the King. When one noble Lord said that the proposal to appoint these ladies as Peeresses would cause any Government to be dissolved amidst the ridicule and opprobrium of the nation, I would ask him to remember how the power to create members of this House has been exercised in the past. The truth is that to try and change this Bill from being what it is into being an attempt to give special privileges to a selected class of ladies and then to attempt to examine their qualifications for the post is both an invidious and—I cannot help saying it—an unfair and not a very courteous way of considering such a measure.
The real reason that lies at the back of this Bill is simply this. One way or the other, for ill or for good, and some of you think one way and some the other, it has been determined that women shall no longer be debarred by virtue of their sex from discharging the public duties that have hitherto been reserved to men. That determination has been followed by good and beneficial results, as I believe everybody agrees, and it was not the least surprising part of the speech of the noble Earl to hear him say that apparently one of the reasons why women were not to sit here was that two had distinguished themselves in the House of Commons. Our Constitution proceeds on the footing that the people

601
who are governed have not merely a right to say by whom they shall be governed, but they are entitled to submit themselves to take part in the Government and that right is exclusive of sex. If that be so, why, when this House of Parliament is constituted exclusively by the hereditary principle, should women be excluded if under the hereditary principle they would be entitled to sit? It has been suggested that they were never selected for the purpose. But the most honoured names in the House are held by people who were never selected for this purpose, but whose ancestors were selected for the purpose, and it was just as great an accident as to what their descendants would turn out to be as whether it would be a man or a woman who would be entitled to sit under and by virtue of the Patent.
I had hoped that, whatever decision you gave upon this matter, it would be at least free from the personal element which I think has been most needlessly introduced. You are not considering the qualifications of these ladies and if you were I venture to say there is hardly one of you who would express an opinion upon them. That is not before us and should form no part in determining the way in which your vote will be given. There is a tradition which comes down from a very remarkable Book, which relates how the Pharisees asked when the Kingdom of Heaven should come on earth and the answer was, "When the man shall be as the woman and the woman shall be as the man and both shall be one." We are a long, long way from realising that profound truth, but this is, at least, a small step forward and I ask your Lordships not to be afraid to take it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Bill is represented by the noble Lord who has just sat down and by other supporters as a measure of long delayed justice for which all right-minded people in the country have been clamouring for a long time and which, in addition to that, is going to add to the efficiency, the amenity, and even the attractions of this House. If it is a question of justice, of abstract justice, I am not at all sure that the arguments are in favour of the supporters of this Bill. I do not profess to be able to form an opinion upon the legal opinions which have been expressed
602
by various learned Lords this afternoon, but there is one thing I am quite clear about and which I can understand, and that is that it is by a pure accident, by what would be vulgarly called a "fluke," that these ladies are able to put in a claim at all and get anybody to support it. For these reasons I prefer to leave justice out of the question altogether and to devote what few remarks I shall make solely to the question of expediency.
I was a convinced supported of female suffrage long before the occupants of both Front Benches here and elsewhere were tumbling over each other in their efforts to give women more than they ever asked for or ever hoped to attain. I was in favour of it for perfectly obvious reasons. It seemed to me an absurdity to try to stand in the way of women trying to obtain the Parliamentary vote when they were at the same time entitled to occupy the highest civic positions in the country. They were able, as far as I know, to become Judges, if they were so disposed, and yet it was contended that they were unfit to put a cross on a ballot paper. But whilst I was in favour of this principle I never suffered any illusions with regard to it. I never for a moment imagined that women were going either to swamp the country or swamp the House of Commons, or that women were going to outvote men by voting for each other. We all know perfectly well that women are much more unchristian-like in their characters than men, that their prejudices are much stronger and that in few circumstances do they prefer to vote for their own sex rather than for a man. But at the same time these women had a perfectly plain, clear right to enter the House of Commons.
I cannot see any analogy whatever between the claim of these women in the past—I am speaking of ten or fifteen years ago—and the claim of these ladies who are clamouring for a vote now and are represented by their champions as a sort of out caste, or—if I am not risking perpetrating a pun—the Peri waiting disconsolate outside the Parliamentary Paradise. Not only am I not able to get up any sympathy on behalf of these ladies, but I can see very good reasons why their claim should not be entertained. One objection—I think it has already been alluded to by previous speakers—is that we are actually

603
solemnly proposing to add to our numbers. The great defect of this place is that it is much too large and it is much too large because of the indiscriminate application of the hereditary principle. Far from desiring to increase the number of the members of this House I am, and always have been, in favour of reducing the number. At least half the present members of this House ought to be got rid of, and I am under the impression that they might be got rid of without their ever ascertaining that their services were dispensed with. Yet, in the face of this predominant weakness of this House, it is calmly proposed to add twenty odd ladies, who, so far as I know, have not manifested any aptitude whatsoever for political life.
It has been claimed at various times that if we admit these ladies we shall introduce a new element which is going to add to the efficiency of this House. I would like to ask people who believe in this theory what efficiency have female Members of Parliament brought to the House of Commons? What effect have they had there? They have not even improved the manners of the place. What influence have they had upon legislation generally? And has any particular female Member of Parliament shown herself in any degree superior to an ordinary male Member of Parliament? What they have done is this: They have attracted a certain amount of attention in the Press, which nowadays devotes no attention whatsoever, if it can possibly avoid it, to Parliament, and they have forced their way on to the Front Bench, and there they will remain.
It is perfectly obvious they are there permanently, because when one Prime Minister has included women in his Government naturally his successor feels bound to do the same. If one Prime Minister puts half a dozen women in his Government his political opponent, when he succeeds to power, will be obliged obviously to put at least six in his Government, because otherwise it would be worked up against him in the country as an intolerable insult to the sex. Although, as I say, they have succeeded to this extent, that they have forced themselves into the Government of the country, I ask what good are they going to do us here and how are they going to add to our efficiency? I will admit
604
that occasionally their opinions might be interesting. We are fond now of discussing social questions. Their opinions, doubtless, would be interesting on divorce and birth control, but, on the whole, those opinions would be far better expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and the right rev. Prelates.
Then there is the fresh air theory, the theory that you are introducing a totally new element into this Assembly. What becomes of that? Perhaps, if you were proposing to admit a selection of highly gifted women who were experts upon one thing or another, this theory might be seriously entertained, but what you are going to do is to introduce a certain number of ladies who belong to the same class as we do ourselves, who have been brought up more or less in the same way, who, like most of us, are imperfectly educated and who are not going to supply us with any new ideas at all. What becomes of the theory of fresh air?
There is another argument adduced in favour of admitting these ladies, a very astonishing argument used by a noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench. He said: If you can only secure the ennobling presence of these ladies you will attract a large number of young men who at present will not come near the place. You must have sunk pretty low if you are reduced to endeavouring to make this House resemble a casino for the purpose of attracting young bloods who prefer occupying themselves in another manner. But I do not think that even this theory will hold water. I do not believe the presence of these immaculate and probably middle-aged ladies would prove such a strong attraction after all. I am inclined to think that if you really want to induce reluctant young bloods to come here and take part in the debates it would be more efficacious if you could secure ladies of the chorus from the theatres.
Perhaps the most curious feature in connection with the proposal to admit these ladies is that amongst its strongest supporters are the noble Lords who sit upon the Front Bench opposite. I have always understood that opposition to the hereditary system was one of the chief articles of faith of the Labour Party, and indeed of the Liberal Party, and yet these noble Lords are actually going to vote for

605
what is literally nothing else but a reductio ad absurdum of the hereditary principle. It is the unlimited application, as I have already said, of the hereditary principle, as resulting in all sorts of unfit persons being entitled to come and sit here, that has been our undoing and that may possibly eventually destroy this House altogether, and I can only interpret the remarkable attitude of the Labour Lords opposite by the theory that they are impelled by some Machiavellian intention to discredit this House and to make it look more ridiculous than it is already. When I say that it is ridiculous already, I mean only that it is ridiculous in the sense that there are a large number of people who belong to it who ought to be got rid of at the earliest opportunity.
I have refrained from mentioning the strongest argument, an argument which, indeed, is absolute, irrefutable, against the inclusion of these ladies—namely, the imminence of the reform of this House—because that has been dealt with by other speakers. I do not share the doubts that were expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster. The reform of this House is a thing that nobody wants. They may say that they want it, but they really do not want it in their hearts. At the same time I am absolutely convinced that it is coining. It is one of those things that are inevitable, and we have to make up our minds that it will come, and before very long, unless some untoward accident should upset the present Government. In those circumstances I put it to the supporters of the Bill that, even if they are successful, if they triumph on this occasion, their triumph will be of a singularly evanescent character. If, as the result of this Bill, these ladies are to sit here, they will obviously be able to sit here only for a very short time. I give them one or two Sessions at the outside, because, after all, reform will come, we shall all be, so to speak, in the melting pot, and I think that if one thing is more certain than another it is that the latest arrivals, supposing these ladies get their way, will be the first to be excluded when the opportunity arises.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, may I ask one question for my own information and for the guidance of your Lordships before you give your votes in a Division?
606
I wish to know whether, if this Bill becomes law, its operation will be confined to these nineteen or twenty-two ladies who have been so frequently referred to, or will it then be within the Prerogative of the Crown to create Peerages for other ladies who, when created, will have seats in your Lordships' House? I do not know whether the noble Viscount has thought of that point and can give me an answer, or whether some legal authority can tell us whether, under this Act, other ladies than those now in question will be able to be called up and have seats in your Lordships' House.
LORD WRENBURY: My Lords, in a book that I was reading a day or two ago there occurred a sentence which struck me, and, although I cannot reproduce it with verbal accuracy, it was to this effect: that there is no better test of the progress of civilisation in any society than to observe the way in which it treats its women. Of course the whole history of mankind has been that the woman was originally considered a very inferior being, little better than a beast of burden, that we have gone upwards, and that as civilisation has progressed we have arrived at what for the moment is the climax reached in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919. That was an Act which recognised that sex equality was accepted by this nation. Down to the time when that Act was passed, no doubt, many of us held very different opinions as to what was the right course as regards sex equality. The nation has now pronounced in favour of it and one cannot go back upon it. There is now equality as between the sexes, and in regard to this Bill the only question is whether, in respect of this particular matter of sitting in this House, a woman is to be disqualified when she is not disqualified elsewhere.
I was a member of both the Committees for Privileges which sat upon Lady Rhondda's case. The first Committee, as your Lordships will remember, was in her favour. In the second case I was one of a small minority. I erred, at any rate, in good company. I thought, and I still think, that that decision was wrong, but it does not matter whether it was right or wrong, for the question before the House now is, not what under

607
the law is the position of woman, but the position which she ought to occupy and what legislation ought to be passed in order to give her her rights in regard to exclusion from the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act. In all the arguments to which your Lordships have listened today I think you will find that this Bill has been treated as if it were a Bill to confer something upon women. I submit for your consideration that it is nothing of the kind. It is not a Bill to give something, but a Bill to remove something. When the King appoints a Peer, there flows from that appointment the right to sit in this House. His Majesty, I apprehend, by virtue of his Prerogative, could not appoint a Peer and withdraw from him the right to sit in this House. Whether he is entitled to sit here or not is a question for your Lordships in Committee for Privileges. The King, of course, creates the right when he creates a Peer, but whether a man is to come
and sit here or not is a question for your Lordships and not for any one else.
The whole question in regard to this Bill is whether or not there shall be a removal of the disqualification to enjoy that privilege which necessarily flows from the act of the Sovereign when he creates a Peer—namely, the right to come here, to sit here and to vote here. Hitherto that right has been excluded by reason of sex. The operation of this-Bill is simply to remove that disqualification. It grants nothing, but it removes something; it enables a woman to do that which, if she were of the other sex, she would be entitled to do. I shall certainly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 126.

CONTENTS.

Marlborough, D.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Jessel, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Kylsant, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Rochester, L. Bp.

Meston, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Reading, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Aberconway, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Cavan, E.

Aberdare, L.

Mostyn, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Arnold, L.

Northbourne, L.

Denbigh, E.

Askwith, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Grey, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Rowallan, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Boston, L.

Ruthwen of Gowrie, L.

Iveagh, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Sackville, L.

Lucan, E.

Chalmers, L.

St. Levan, L.

Manvers, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Munster, E.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Powis, E.

Daryngton, L.

Savile, L.

Selborne, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Shaw, L.

Sondes, E.

Derwent, L.

Stafford, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Digby, L.

Thomson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Emmott, L.

Trevor, L.

Farrer, L.

Vestey, L.

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Vivian, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Gorell, L.

Wargrave, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Wester Wemyss, L.

Haldane, V.

Harris, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hampden, V.

Hemphill, L.

Wrenbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wynford, L.

Ystwyth, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Lansdowne, M.

Beauchamp, E.

Zetland, M.

Birkenhead, E.

Argyll, D.

Bradford, E.

Bedford, D.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

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

Portland, D.

Airlie, E.

Sutherland, D.

Albemarle, E.

Durham, E.

Wellington, D.

Amherst, E.

Eldon, E.

Ancaster, E.

Haddington, E.

Bath, M.

Bathurst, E.

Harrowby, E.

Howe, E.

Avebury, L.

Lamington, L.

Ilchester, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Leicester, E.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Lindsay, E.

Biddulph, L.

Leconfield, L.

Lindsey, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Lovelace, E.

Carson, L.

Merrivale, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Charnwood, L.

Merthyr, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Monson, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Mowbray, L.

Mayo, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Morton, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Newton, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Northbrook, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Onslow, E.

Desborough, L. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Dynevor, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Spencer, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Stanhope, E.

Doverdale, L.

Queenborough, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

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

Rayleigh, L.

Redesdale, L.

Allendale, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Revelstoke, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Forester, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Churchill, V.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun, L.

Cross, V.

Gisborongh, L.

Sempill, L.

Devonport, V.

Hampton, L.

Sherborne, L.

Falmonth, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Southborough, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hastings, L.

Stanmore, L.

Hood, V.

Hindlip, L.

Strachie, L.

Inchcape, V.

Hothfield, L.

Strathspey, L.

Peel, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Swaythling, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Hylton, L.

Sydenham of Combe, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Illingworth, L.

Templemore, L.

Joicey, L.

Teynham, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Treowen, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Waring, L.

Annaly, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Wharton, L.

Atkinson, L.

Lambourne, L.

Wittenham, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment agreed to accordingly: Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

PASSMORE EDWARDS (TILBURY) COTTAGE HOSPITAL CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EAEL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this Bill, like the three following Bills, is a Bill to give effect to a scheme for the administration of a charity which has been re-organised by the Charity Commissioners. The Bill is entirely uncontroversial, and I will not trouble your Lordships with any details about it, but if any noble Lord wishes for any further information I can give it to him. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ALLHALLOWS AND MARWOOD (HONI- TON) CHARITIES SCHEME CON- FIRMATION BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
ROBERT EARL OF LEICESTER'S HOS- PITAL CHARITIES SCHEME CON- FIRMATION BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
BRIGHTON (LONDON ROAD) CON- GREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PEERAGES IN ABEYANCE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I beg to move the

611
Motion standing in my name for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of Peerages in abeyance. The Motion is the same as that which your Lordships passed last year, except that the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, has been added to the Committee. I propose to add to the Motion, as it appears upon the Paper, words empowering the Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
Moved, That a Select Committee of this House be set up, with power to appoint their own Chairman, to inquire into the subject of Peerages in abeyance, and report to the House on the matter,
612
and that the Lords following be named of the Committee—

M. Bath.

L. Kintore (E. Kintore).

L. Stanley of Alderley (L. Sheffield).

L. Hylton.

L. Redesdale.

L. Sumner.

L. Muir Mackenzie.

L. Askwith.

(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 11) BILL. [H.L.]

  SCARBOROUGH ORDER.
  MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
  RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
  PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Castlemaine and the Lord Aberdare be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Strafford and the Lord Templemore; read, and agreed to

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL.
    PONTEFRACT OREDER.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [H.L.] (Scarborough Order) and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Bill (Pontefract Order); read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Order to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Order.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  To be read 2a on Tuesday next.