Sitting of 18 November 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the ease of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Marriages Provisional Orders Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    MEAT SUPPLIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War if his Department proposes to buy British-produced meat for the troops during the ensuing six months; and if he will say how far ahead meat contracts are made?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The issue to the troops of home-killed meat, to which I presume the hon. and gallant Member refers, is precluded by the heavy increased expenditure which would be involved. Practically all the meat issued at home is frozen meat of Dominion origin. Contracts are made for six-monthly periods beginning on 1st April and 1st October, and are placed about six weeks before they are due to commence.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In view of the assistance that it would be to agriculture, will the right hon. Gentleman
    212
    consider, when the contracts are over, adopting new contracts so as to allow for the purchase of British home-killed meat?
    Mr. SHAW: If any organised body of farmers will put before the War Office a scheme for the supply of British meat at something like a price comparable with the price now paid, I will gladly consider it. The prices now are often 100 per cent. higher than the prices we are paying.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the policy he has adopted was the policy adopted by his predecessor?

    CHEMICAL WARFARE.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether experiments are still being undertaken in the utilisation of poisonous and asphyxiating gases in warfare?
    Mr. SHAW: Research and experiment relating to defence against gas are still being undertaken.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that nothing is being done to infringe, in the letter or the spirit, the Convention which this country has signed?
    Mr. SHAW: So far as I know, we are strictly keeping to any Convention we have entered into with regard to researches against gas attack.

    CADET CORPS.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for War what action is being taken by his Department with reference to the equipment and arms of which the cadet force has been deprived, in consequence of the decision not to give it recognition?
    Mr. SHAW: Instructions have been issued that all publicly-owned arms on loan to cadet units should be returned to Army Ordnance Depots. Equipment was issued on temporary loan only during the camping period.

    RETIRED OFFICERS.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for War the number of retired Army officers who are estimated to receive as pensions £3,422,500 in the current year?
    Mr. SHAW: As shown on pages 261 and 262 of the current Army Estimates,

    213
    the estimated number of officers for whose retired pay the sum in question is provided is 10,214.

    TROOPS, CHINA.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for War what is the total establishment of British troops in China, including the garrison of Hong Kong; what was the purpose of the recent military expeditions up the Yangtse; and whether he will make a statement concerning the military situation?
    Mr. SHAW: The establishment of British, Indian and Colonial troops in China, including those in the Hong Kong area, is approximately 360 officers and 7,000 other ranks. As regards the second part of the question, no military expeditions have been sent up the Yangtze River. When at the beginning of last August there were fears that a force of some 40,000 bandits would advance on Hankow, His Majesty's Government authorised the despatch of a company of Infantry from Shanghai to be placed on board ship at the disposal of the commander of the naval forces normally stationed on the Yangtze. Fortunately the advance on Hankow was not pursued and the troops returned to Shanghai without having been landed. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 3rd November to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood).
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has sufficient troops out there for the protection of British interests and particularly British lives?
    Mr. SHAW: I can assure the House—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

    WAR GRAVES (REGISTER).
    Mr. LONGDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the intention of the Imperial War Graves Commission to publish a register of the particulars of members of the British Expeditionary Forces who died during the Great War and were buried in the Moeuvres, Sanders Keep, and Graincourtles-Havrincourt cemeteries; and, if so, will he inquire why poor relatives are
    214
    asked to pay 3s. per copy, and see if they can be supplied with free copies?
    Mr. SHAW: Under its Charter, the Imperial War Graves Commission is required to complete and maintain records and registers of all War graves, and the publication of the registers of the cemeteries referred to is in accordance with that requirement. Before a register is printed the relatives of those whose names are included in it are given the opportunity of ordering such copies as they may require at the cost price of 3s. a copy, and copies additional to official requirements are printed in accordance with the number of such demands received. The Commission has no power to expend its funds on the supply of registers to relatives free of cost.

  SCOTLAND.

    RUSSIAN WHEAT.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken with regard to the request he has received from the National Union of Farmers in Scotland for a boycott of Soviet wheat?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): My right hon. Friend has received no request from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland on the subject of the boycott of wheat arriving from Russia.
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: Have any of the trade unions protested against being compelled to handle goods manufactured by slave labour in Russia?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: That obviously does not arise out of the question.

    PRISONS (MATERNITY CASES).
    Miss LEEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many babies have been born in Scottish prisons during the 12 months ended 31st July, 1930; and how many pregnant women prisoners have been transferred to outside hospitals or maternity homes for childbirth?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: No babies were born in Scottish prisons during the twelve months ended 31st July, 1930. During that period, one Borstal inmate and one prisoner were removed to outside hospitals for childbirth.
    Miss LEE: Since there are so very few cases, will the Under-Secretary consider

    215
    the advisability of seeing that no children are born in prison, but that maternity cases are transferred to outside homes?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Our information is that during the last 12 years no child has been born in a Scottish prison.
    Miss LEEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the regulations allow anæsthetics to be given to women in childbirth in prison maternity wards; whether any special diet is allowed to pregnant women; and, if so, what is the nature of such diet?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: There is nothing in the Prisons (Scotland) Rules to preclude anæsthetics from being given to women in childbirth in Scottish prisons if the prison medical officer considers it advisable and the prisoner consents. No special dietary scale has been authorised for pregnant prisoners; but the prison medical officer has power to alter diet if satisfied that it is necessary; and it is his duty to see that every prisoner has sufficient food.
    Miss LEE: Since there are allegations of a certain amount of harshness in the treatment of these women, will the Under-Secretary see that in order to make them good citizens a little extra expense and attention is devoted to them?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. Member will give me any specific complaint relating to a specific prison we shall be glad to have it inquired into.
    Miss LEE: I will do that.

    HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFIT.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that certain approved societies, including the Prudential, have issued notices to their members stating that, as from 1st January, 1931, they will not be eligible for benefit from national health insurance owing to their prolonged period of unemployment; and if he proposes taking any steps to deal with this matter?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The approved societies to which the hon. Member refers have acted quite properly in notifying their members of their position under the existing law.
    216
    As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend is in communication with the Minister of Health, and I am not presently in a position to add to the reply given by the Minister of Health to the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) and Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) on 30th October last.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland was communicated with on this subject in May and June of this year, can the Under-Secretary say why the delay has taken place in coming to a decision on this important matter?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The question will only arise in an acute form on the 1st January next. My right hon. Friend has other interests to consider, and he has been in communication with those other interests. Immediately a decision is taken no time will be lost.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is there any doubt in the mind of anyone as to the necessity for the continuance of this benefit?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: On pensions, there is no doubt whatever, but the precise form of any legislation and the date upon which it will be possible to bring it in have not yet been decided.
    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: Is the hon. Member aware that the societies are placed in great difficulty because of the delay? Will he press upon the Secretary of State for Scotland the necessity of a speedy decision?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Can the hon. Member say whether such legislation will apply to England as well as Scotland?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: That is the precise point of my answer. My answer cannot deal with Scotland alone. The Secretary of State for Scotland is in communication with the Minister of Health.
    Mr. LEWIS: Will he complain to the Minister of Health as to the necessity of getting speed on? There are only six weeks left.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether legislation will be introduced to protect the right of unemployed men and women on the lines of the prolongation of insurance benefits, in view of the fact that thousands of men and women will cease

    217
    to be eligible for health insurance benefit at the end of the year if no such legislation is passed before the end of this year?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As I stated in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) this afternoon my right hon. Friend is in communication with the Minister of Health, and I am not presently in a position to add to the reply given by the Minister of Health to the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Palmer) and Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) on 30th October last.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is my hon. Friend aware that members of approved societies are now being informed that they will be out of benefit and that they must become voluntary contributors if they wished to remain in benefit? In view of the fact that I asked this question on 7th May, will the hon. Member be in a position to give me an answer if I put down a question next week?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I should not like to promise, but I hope so.

    POOR LAW RELIEF (GLASGOW).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has consulted his medical advisers on the effect of the present scales of relief paid by Glasgow public assistance committees to persons on able-bodied relief, particularly on the health of the children concerned; and if he is satisfied that the scales paid to widows with children can allow for proper nourishment in cases recently submitted to him?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The primary responsibility for the maintenance of the health of the child population of Glasgow rests upon the corporation. The Department of Health for Scotland are, however, at present engaged on an inquiry in the schools of the four large cities in Scotland and of the county of Lanark in order to ascertain the physical condition of children whose parents have been unemployed for a considerable time. As regards the latter part of the question, the adequacy of the poor relief at present being paid in the cases of two widows about whom my hon. Friend wrote on the
    218
    22nd October will be considered immediately on receipt by the Department of Health of the statutory complaint which the Poor Law Act entitles them to make. As explained in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Department have no power to prescribe a scale.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (GLASGOW).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if plans have yet been received and sanctioned by his Department for the building of a new school in Dale Street, South Side, Glasgow; if not, what action is being taken; and if any plans have yet been received for a school clinic in Gorbals?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Preliminary plans for the now school building to be erected on the Dale Street site were provisionally approved by the Scottish Education Department on 13th March last, and I am informed from Glasgow that tenders for the execution of the work will be invited in the course of a few weeks. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that the matter of a school clinic in Gorbals is under the consideration of the Glasgow Public Health Department as part of a general scheme.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is my hen. Friend aware that the Secretary of State and myself received a promise that this clinic would be provided almost at once? Now six months have gone by.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: My information is that the Public Health Department of the Glasgow Corporation are considering the question of the provision of clinics. I have no further details.

    RATES, LANARK.
    Mr. TRAINasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any reductions in local rates have taken place in the parishes within the county of Lanark as a result of the operation of the Local Government Act of 1929; and, if so, what are the amounts of reductions and the particular areas affected?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: As the answer is long and involves a number of figures, 1 propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    In view of variations that may have taken place in the rate-borne expenditure and valuations since the standard year (1928–29) it is not possible to say what reductions have been effected in local rates for the current year as a result of the operation of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929. So far as the standard year is concerned it is estimated that the following reductions on the rates for that year would have been effected as a result of the provisions of the Act, if it had been in force:

    Area.

    Decrease in rate.

    s.

    d.

    Landward Areas:

    Parish of:

    Blantyre

    …

    4

    2.39

    Bothwell:

    Hamilton Police Area

    …

    1

    4.95

    Airdrie Police Area

    …

    1

    6.48

    Cambuslang

    …

    11.31

    Cambusnethan

    …

    6.83

    Carluke

    …

    7.63

    Carnwath

    …

    1

    11.75

    Dalserf

    …

    3

    9.33

    Douglas

    …

    1.66

    Glasgow

    …

    9.56

    Hamilton

    …

    2

    1.04

    Lesmahagow

    8.45

    New Monkland

    …

    1

    3.59

    Old Monkland

    …

    1

    1.83

    Shotts:

    Hamilton Police Area

    …

    6.70

    Airdrie Police Area

    …

    8.22

    Stonehouse

    …

    6.20

    Burghal Areas:

    Airdrie:

    New Monkland Parish

    …

    1

    1.24

    Old Monkland Parish

    …

    11.26

    Coatbridge

    …

    1

    2.41

    Hamilton:

    Blantyre Parish

    …

    3

    3.05

    Hamilton Parish

    …

    10.74

    Motherwell and Wishaw:

    Bothwell Parish

    …

    2

    4.84

    Cambusnethan Parish

    …

    1

    5.53

    Dalziel Parish

    …

    8.80

    Rutherglen

    …

    1.11

    Glasgow:

    Glasgow Parish

    …

    5.31

    Govan Parish

    …

    7.87

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the num-
    220
    ber of claims to widows' pensions which were disallowed but afterwards allowed on account of the judgment of the Court of Session in the case of Kerr; and whether any steps have been taken to allow appeals in all cases where claimants have asked for reconsideration in view of the Kerr judgment and the Department have ruled against the applicant?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I am informed that so far as can meantime be ascertained nine widows' pensions fall to be allowed as a result of the Court of Session decision referred to. Inquiry is still proceeding in a few other cases. As regards the second part of the question, many applicants have asked for reconsideration of their claims under a misapprehension that their cases were affected by the Kerr decision and have been informed of the true position. Where, however, claims in respect of cases to which the decision does apply have been refused by the Department on other grounds the right of appeal to the referees has in every ease been extended to the applicants.
    Major McKENZIE WOOD: May I ask whether steps will be taken by the Department to notify widows whose cases have been wrongly disallowed so that they may be able to have their cases reconsidered?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The whole matter is one of very great complexity. The fact is that some women applicants have benefited as a result of the Kerr decision. Others have been placed in a worse position, but I hope that in the circumstances any questions with regard to the further steps to be taken will not be pressed.
    Major WOOD: Will the hon. Member remember the case of those widows who made application in the proper time and had their claims wrongly disallowed?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: In every case where claims have been wrongly disallowed and it has been proved to have been wrongly disallowed as a result of the Kerr decision, steps are being taken to notify the applicants to that effect; but that is an entirely different question from the one previously put by the hon. and gallant Member.

    ADOPTION OF CHILDREN ACT.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Lord Advocate the cost of obtaining ad adoption order under the provisions of the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act; and, in view of the procedure in England, whether he will take steps to arrange for a similarly simple and inexpensive method to be adopted in Scotland?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is making inquiry with a view to ascertaining what is likely to be the cost of an unopposed application for an Order under the Statute, and the comparative cost in England, and on obtaining the information he will communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MATHERS: May I be allowed to put a further general question to the Lord Advocate in order that those who are interested in this matter may have the information as soon as possible?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: There is no objection to my hon. Friend putting down a further question

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (POSTERS.).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the total annual cost of the posters issued by the Empire Marketing Board for exhibition upon their own private hoardings in Great Britain?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The annual cost of designing and printing the posters issued by the Board for exhibition upon their own private hoardings is approximately £13,000, exclusive of the cost of reproducing such posters for use in schools.
    Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will use some of this money in negotiating an equitable contract with the Post Office, who at present publish foreign advertisements?
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!

    IDLE SHIPPING TONNAGE.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the President of the Board of
    222
    Trade whether he will in future issue quarterly a table showing the idle registered world shipping tonnage, with a comparison of relative figures for the corresponding period of the previous year; and will he, if necessary, invite other nations to collaborate in the compilation of this information for international purposes?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): It would not be possible, from the available information, to prepare on a comparable basis for British and foreign countries a statement of the tonnage which is idle or laid up. As it would be difficult to supply precise and complete official information, even for the United Kingdom, I think no useful purpose would be served by approaching other Governments.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ascertain the amount and value of sugar products for delivery in Britain which the Soviet Government has been selling; and will he ascertain and state whether those products were sold at prices below the prices of similar goods produced in Britain?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The imports of sugar products registered as consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia) during the nine months ended 30th September, 1930, consisted mainly of liquid glucose (129,184 cwts.) and confectionery (8,962 cwts.) the declared value of which was £85,559 and £23,192 respectively. Statements have been made that some such goods have been sold at less than the general market price in this country, but I have no means of ascertaining the prices at which particular consignments of goods are sold.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the petrol imported into Great Britain from Russia during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1930; and what percentage of this amount represents labour costs?
    Mr. GRAHAM: During the 12 months ended 30th June, 1930, the declared value of the total imports of petroleum motor spirit into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered as consigned from the

    223
    Soviet Union (Russia) was £2,801,930. I have no information regarding the second part of the question.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who imported this petrol and who purchased it?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I must ask my hon. Friend for notice of that question.
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the tinned salmon industry of British Columbia is being seriously affected by the dumping by the Soviet Government of tinned salmon produced under labour conditions which make it impossible for British Columbian firms to compete successfully in the British markets, and that Holland and other countries have, in the special conditions which obtain, placed an embargo on the entry of Soviet food ships; and what action the British Government propose to take to put an end to this undercutting of Imperial industries rendered possible by the wholesale employment of unpaid labour by the Russian Government?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The statistics for the first 10 months of the year show an increase in imports of canned salmon from Canada this year compared with last year and a heavy decrease in imports from Russia. I have no information as to any action taken in regard to the importation of Russian goods by the Netherlands Government, but a reference to action taken in France and Belgium was made in my answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on 4th November. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 3rd November to the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Sir G. Penny).
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Britain formerly used 80 per cent. of the salmon exported from British Columbia and that that figure has now gone down to 10 per cent.; and is he further aware that the decrease is in consequence of this importation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is a rather debatable point. There are many other factors.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of Russian wheat have been imported into this country during the month of October?
    Mr. GRAHAM: During the month of October, 1930, 3,294,000 cwts. of wheat imported into this country were registered as consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia).
    Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion was consigned to the Co-operative Society?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I certainly could not say without notice and I am not sure that I could do so, even with notice.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Since the Government are comparing this year with the past year, may I ask if it is not the fact that last year the figure was zero?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think it was very small or at all events negligible, but I must warn the right hon. Gentleman against erroneous deductions.
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: How does the figure of 3,294,000 cwts. compare with the corresponding figure for October, 1913?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board are still without information as to arrangements which have been made by the Russian Soviet Government to dump doors, probably to the number of 600,000, on the British market next year at prices considerably under the wage cost involved and apart from any charge for materials used; and, if so, will the Board make inquiries in the timber market on the matter and inform the House of the action which the Government propose to take in the interest of British joiners?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I fear I can add nothing to the reply which I made to a question by the hon. Member on this subject on Tuesday last.
    Sir. W. DAVISON: Are the Government going to hold their hands and not make any inquiries, in view of the urgency of this question the accuracy of

    225
    which is not, I understand, disputed, while all our working men are put out of employment?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. Member will appreciate that this question refers to what is to happen next year. I have already informed the House that I can only deal with current imports, and, as a matter of fact, in this field they are very small indeed.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the time when great contracts are made for the new season, and will he take steps to see whether it would not be advisable to prohibit the importation of these doors into this country before the contracts are made?
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most other countries in the world are making protests?

    IMPORTS (SWEATED LABOUR).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation designed to prevent the dumping in this country of goods made by sweated labour?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to goods manufactured by sweated labour has been repeatedly stated and I would refer the right hon. Member in particular to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) on 20th May.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all those answers were merely a matter of window dressing, I suppose in view of the election.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very improper epithet to use in a question.
    Sir K. WOOD: I will put my question in another form, and, if I have in any way offended the right hon. Gentleman I humbly apologise. Will he kindly answer the question, whether or not it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation? I am not asking about policy.
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It would be quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman
    226
    to offend me. As regards legislation, it could only be by prohibition or licence or some device of that kind, and I have always informed the House that while this is a very difficult matter, m which we must all try to find a solution, a solution on those lines would aggravate rather than cure the disease.
    Mr. WISE: Have the Government taken any steps at Geneva or elsewhere with a view to putting into operation the scheme for dealing with imported sweated goods formulated by a committee of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was chairman and which was embodied in "Labour and the Nation."
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir. At Geneva under numerous heads we have done everything in our power in what is a very difficult field of international negotiation.
    Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: is it not the case that in "Labour and the Nation" the Government announced that prohibition of sweated imports was their policy, and does the right hon. Gentleman now state that it, would only aggravate the situation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has not accurately apprehended the position. The position is that only as a last resort, after every other effort has been made and has failed in the field of international agreement, would a device of that kind be advisable.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Lord Oxford and Asquith pointed out that anti-dumping legislation—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not seem to arise.

    FOOD AND CLOTHING.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade which articles of food or clothing in common use by the majority of workers in this country are shown by the Board of Trade statistics to be the subject of a monopoly or quasi-monopoly?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: There are no Board of Trade statistics hearing on this subject, but the Consumers' Council proposed to be set up under the provisions of the Bill now before Parliament will be

    227
    able to obtain information showing how far monopoly conditions may exist in the food and clothing trades.
    Mr. LEWIS: Am Ito understand that the Board of Trade have at present no evidence that such monopolies exist?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; there is a good deal of information regarding trusts and monopolies in this country, but a reply to the hon. Member's question in the terms in which he put it led to this reference to the Consumers' Council, in the report of which exact details will be obtained.

    WAR MATERIAL (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA AND CHINA).
    Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds he grants licences for the export of munitions of war to Russia?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Applications for licences to export war material to the Soviet Union are treated on exactly the same basis as applications in respect of any other foreign country.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has there been any increase in this form of Russian trade and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the development of this trade?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It would be quite impossible to reply to the first part of the question without notice, but recently I have given the House, in reply to questions, details of the licences issued by the Board of Trade. I must again remind hon. Members that I am only the licensing authority and I have no voice at all in policy.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that the Government, by trade with Russia, mean the development of the trade of sending cannons to Russia?
    Viscountess ASTOR: And tanks?
    Mr. MALONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the export of arms and munitions from the United Kingdom to China is still subject to licence by the Board of Trade, under the Arms Export Prohibition Order?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir.

    SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to have a Government inquiry into the condition of the shipbuilding and engineering industry on the lines of the recent cotton inquiry?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: No, Sir. My hon. Friend has no doubt seen the letter addressed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the Engineering Joint Trades Wages Movement which expresses the views of His Majesty's Government on the subject.
    Mr. KELLY: Is there any intention of reconsidering this matter in order that an investigation may take place into the low wage conditions operating in these industries?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Not as far as I know at the moment, but the fact remains that the two—sides al all events the employers—were willing to engage in a very full investigation within the industry. That, I understand, is the proposition which is still before die unions.
    Mr. KELLY: Is there any information in the Department as to the employers and the unions having met on this matter?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Minister of Labour suggested to the representatives of the operatives that they ought to accept the suggestion that was made by the employers as to examining conditions on the Continent?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir, my recollection of the letter to which my original reply referred was that it stressed the importance of the inquiry proceeding within the industry itself, and I have no doubt that both Continental and home conditions will be taken into account.

    TARIFF TRUCE.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade what Colonies, Protectorates, or Territories of the British Empire were especially excepted under Article 15 by the Government under the International Commercial Convention discussed at Geneva?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The United Kingdom delegate declared at the time of signing the Convention that his signa-

    229
    ture did not cover any of His Britannic Majesty's Colonies, Protectorates, or Territories under suzerainty or mandate. As the Protocol to Article 15 provided that the Convention applied in relation to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as if they were Colonies, they were also excluded at the time of signature.
    Mr. ALBERY: Does that reply mean that none of the Dominions or Colonies shares the right hon. Gentleman's views on this Convention?
    Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now considered the communication from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce urging the Government to postpone sine die any decision in respect of the signing of the Tariff Truce; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have received a communication from the chamber urging that further action to bring the Convention into force should be postponed in view of the small number of States which have ratified it. I understand, however, that there is a probability that a number of other States will take steps to ratify, and in these circumstances I am at present unable to indicate what action in the matter may prove desirable.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be wise to postpone any further steps in relation to this Convention, at least until the postponed Economic Conference of the British Empire has met and made its recommendations?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No. I have always told the House that, quite apart from our views on Free Trade or Protection, it is surely desirable to encourage every movement to reduce European tariffs. I have previously said to the right hon. Gentleman that the ratification of this Convention on our part is quite without prejudice to any steps that may he taken arising from the recent Imperial Conference, because in fact we could give notice, if necessary, at the 1st February and be out of all obligation in relation to this Convention by the 1st April.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In order that the Conference which is to continue
    230
    at Ottawa in June of next year may not be prejudiced, will the right hon. Gentleman give notice on the 1st February to determine the Convention?
    Mr. GRAHAM: How could anyone promise that at the present time, when we do not yet know what will come either of the negotiations under this Convention or of the further discussion arising out of the adjourned Imperial Conference?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it consistent with the comity that we owe to our sister Dominions to pledge this Government in advance of the discussions of the Conference, in which they agreed to take part with the Dominions, in the middle of the summer of next year?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, I am unable, if I may say so with respect, to agree with my right hon. Friend on that point, because of the dates which I have mentioned. We can, in fact, be quite clear of this, by notice on the 1st February, by the let April, and, strictly speaking, the Imperial Conference is not prejudiced in any way.

    MILK POWDER (IMPORTS).
    Mr. HOPKINasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of milk which has been imported into this country in a powdered form during the last 12 months; and if he will state the country of origin of these imports?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total quantity of unsweetened milk powder imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland, registered during the 19 months ended 31st October, 1930, amounted to 250,061 cwts., over 70 per cent. of which was consigned from the Netherlands and New Zealand, while other principal sources of supply were Canada, the United States, Switzerland, France and Australia. The imports of sweetened milk powder during the same period amounted to 17,888 cwts., of which the bulk was consigned from New Zealand.
    Major GLYN: I did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's reply. What was the figure?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The figure was 250,061 cwts.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the effect on the children of this country of putting a small duty on this article?

    FINANCE AND INDUSTRY.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take any immediate steps to encourage closer relations between industry and banking, so that advantages similar to those enjoyed in the United States of America and Germany in the way of industrial banks and generally in facilities for the development of new enterprise may be made available in this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): These matters fall directly within the terms of reference of the MacMillan Committee and will, I anticipate, be dealt with in its report.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the proposals which was issued by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and will he treat it with every respect?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid I am not so familiar with the many proposals of my right hon. Friend.

    REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the activities of certain so-called registration agents who are sending out circulars, which are printed to imitate official documents, to traders with a view to extracting fees under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916; and if he proposes to take any action?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: My attention has from time to time been called to these circulars. I have no power to prevent their issue, but it is sometimes possible to persuade those who issue them to remove some of the more objectionable features.
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people charge as much as £1 for registration when the fee is only 5s., and that, by using semi-official paper, they impress certain small traders with the idea that
    232
    it comes from a Government Department; and cannot he take some action in the matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have not seen circulars quoting £1, but I have seen circulars quoting 15s. I agree that they are printed in such a way as to suggest that they are official documents, but unfortunately that is quite within the law, and I have no power to prevent it. I should like, however, to take this opportunity of urging publicly that it would be very much better if all parties would go direct to the department and not rely on such circulars.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does not the form of action complained of lend itself to blackmail, and ought not the Board of Trade find means by which to take action?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is doubtful whether one would go so far as to say it is blackmail. They are perfectly legal circulars, but I am afraid that it is true that they are to some extent misleading.

    NORWAY AND SWEDEN.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider making representations to the Norwegian and Swedish Governments as to the ad vantage of reciprocity in trade; and if he can make an arrangement whereby in return for our purchases of timber they make purchases from the United Kingdom of coal?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I doubt if action on the lines suggested in the question would be likely to achieve any useful purpose. Steps have been taken, however, to bring to the notice of purchasers in Norway and Sweden the advantages of buying British goods. A delegation led by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines made a tour to study the coal position in Scandinavia last September, and the Report of the Delegation has been presented to Parliament as a Command Paper.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Norway and Sweden are very largely buying their coal from Poland, which does not buy any timber from those countries?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It was one of the objects of the recent delegation to try and recover our trade for British coal in the Scandinavian market.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he is aware that some British families sent out to Victoria, Australia, under the auspices of the Overseas Settlement Act are reduced to receiving sup-plies of food and clothing from the Salvation Army and similar organisations; and, since these British settlers have lost all their capital which was invested in Australia as a condition of assistance from the home Government, will he make inquiries of the Government of Australia in order that action may be taken to assist the settlers;
  (2) whether the Overseas Settlement Committee have any recent information concerning the condition and prospects of British settlers placed on blocks of land in the State of Victoria, on which they have been incapable of making a living; and, in view of the fact that these blocks of land had been previously abandoned by Australian ex-soldier settlers owing to the poverty of the soil and difficulties of communication and marketing what steps does he propose to take to help these British settlers?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry to say that it is a fact that there are a number of settlers from the United Kingdom now in Victoria who are in distress, and that it is contended on behalf of these settlers that the conditions on which they were led to go out to Victoria and to take up land there have not been fulfilled. The Government of Victoria decided in July last to set up a Royal Commission in order to inquire into the position of these settlers but the latest information in my possession is that the Commission has not yet begun its inquiries. So far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, the agreement bearing on this matter is one with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia and I am taking up the matter with the latter Government.
  Major GLYN: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to see him and give him certain information I have from ex-service men so that the matter can be expedited? They are in great distress and have neither food nor clothing?
  Mr. THOMAS: I shall be pleased to have any information that the hon. and gallant Member gives me. The answer I have given to the question ought to bring home to the House the difficulty which I have frequently explained when it was being assumed that it was an easy matter to send people to the Dominions. I have taken the view that it would be unwise to attempt to force that issue in the present position in the Dominions, and these and many other cases unfortunately only emphasise the position.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Cannot something be done to meet the pressing needs of these people by the Government of Victoria or the home Government?
  Mr. THOMAS: When the right hon. and gallant Member talks about the Government of this country he must have in mind the position of his own Government in this matter. Surely when an obligation or contract is entered into between two Governments there is a moral obligation on both. It is not necessary for me to say that I sympathise with these people. I know their terrible distress, but the matter is far too delicate and difficult for me to give an answer across the Floor of the House.

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what proposals have been made by the representatives of the Dominions at the Imperial Conference in relation to the encouragement of Empire trade; and what replies have been made by the Government to such advances?
  Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday to questions on this subject addressed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) and the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville).
  Captain MACDONALD: When is the House to be given this information, and when is the report to be issued?
  Mr. THOMAS: I anticipate that the report will be issued before the end of the week. Then, through the usual channels, arrangements for the debate will be made, I hope as early as possible.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Shall we have the economic report?
  Mr. THOMAS: The full report, I anticipate, will be published before the end of this week.

  BRITISH CITIZENS, CANADA (REPATRIATION).
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to recent complaints concerning the compulsory repatriation of British citizens from Canada; whether he has made any representations to the Canadian authorities; and what has been the nature of the replies?
  Mr. THOMAS: Representations reach His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom from time to time as to cases of deportation of British subjects from Canada to this country. The matter is under consideration.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the matters referred to here come under the purview of the Royal Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have not referred to any Royal Commission in this connection.
  HON. MEMBERS: It related to Australia.
  Mr. THOMAS: But this is a Canadian question. I am sure my hon. Friend will have observed the very strong position taken up by the Dominion Premiers regarding their own interests in their own countries first.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade it he will consider whether the small balance of the staff of the Clearing House of Enemy Debts can be housed in the building of the Board of Trade and the Office of Works, Storey's Gate, and the Clearing House office accommodation at Cornwall House dispensed with; and will he take steps for the closer settlement of accommodation at Storey's Gate for that purpose?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the building referred to large numbers of the staff are employed one or two floors below ground? Before he puts on any more staff, will he press on the Office of Works the necessity for more accommodation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That matter was considered some time ago, and, when my hon. Friend sees my reply, he will agree that no proposal for additional staff there will be entertained.
    Following is the answer:
    So far as the Board of Trade is concerned a considerable concentration of the staff at Headquarters, amounting to an addition of 170 persons, was carried out in January last in order to transfer the Mercantile Marine Department from Great Smith Street to the Headquarters' building, and no further concentration is now possible. I understand from my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that the pressure on the accommodation in the occupation of other Departments in the building is so severe that it would be quite impossible, even if it were desirable, to transfer to the building the remaining staff of the Clearing Office now in the Government building at Cornwall House. I would add that the cost of the accommodation occupied by the Clearing Office is repaid by that Department to the Office of Works out of the fees accrued, that surplus accommodation is surrendered as rapidly as possible, and that removal at this stage would seriously interfere with the progress of the work.
    Sir JOHN FERGUSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the distribution by the administrator of Hungarian property at Cornwall House, Stamford Street, is now completed, with the exception of a possible distribution on account of interest; and whether he will take steps to have the staff of the Clearing House for Enemy Debts overhauled so that the staff may be reduced by not less than 15 per cent. between now and 1st January?
    Colonel GRETTONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) when it is proposed to pay the balance of 1s. 6d. in £ the due upon accepted claims in the Anglo-Hungarian section of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts; sad will he state the date upon which he proposes to close down that Department;
    (2) the number of persons employed on 1st November by the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts; and what reduction he proposes to make in the numbers between now and 1st January next?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The dividend of 1s. 6d. in the £ to which the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) refers was paid on the 7th November. The work of distributing the Hungarian dividends forms but a small fraction of the work of the Clearing Office and no special staff has been retained for it. The work of that office considered as a whole is under constant review, and reductions of staff are effected as quickly as the state of the work permits. The staff on the 1st November was 306 and is to-day 293. A reduction of 20 per cent. has been made since 1st June last and further reductions will be made as and when they may be found possible.

    BOARD OF TRADE (ADVISORY COUNCIL).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the attendances out of a possible total attendance of the members of the Board of Trade Advisory Council is recorded, so that members who find it difficult to attend may be asked to give place to others who are in a position to give full time to this work?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. No such record is kept. The general rule is that no member remains in the Council for more than three years, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the members, who are all busy men, attend the monthly meetings of the Council with a regularity for which I am most grateful.

  LOSS OF YACHT "ISLANDER."
  Mr. T. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the findings of the court of inquiry appointed to investigate the loss
  238
  of the yacht "Islander" off the Cornish coast on 20th August last, he will consider the question of granting a gratuity to the dependants of the crew to augment the amount recoverable by them under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that there is not at the disposal of the Board of Trade any fund out of which such a gratuity could be paid. The crew consisted only of two, and in the case of the only dependant widow there is, I understand, in addition to a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, a claim for a widow's pension now under consideration.

  OLD SHIPS (DISPOSAL).
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a large amount of old British shipping tonnage is being sold to foreign shipowners; the amount of such tonnage; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent it.
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total number of all vessels reported in 1929 as removed from the United Kingdom Register on sale to foreign subjects was 240, with a tonnage of 687,063 tons gross, and the comparable figures for the year 1913 were 432 vessels of 755,020 tons gross. I have recently appointed a committee to inquire into the whole question of the disposal of old ships, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the terms of reference, with the names of the members of the committee.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is really necessary to have this committee?
  Mr. EGANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will include in the terms of reference for investigation and report by the committee inquiring into the sale of old ships to foreign competitors the subsidising of foreign shipbuilding and ship-repairing yards by their respective Governments, and the taxation by foreign Governments of the cost of repairs on foreign ships carried out in this country?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The subjects mentioned by my hon. Friend are being carefully watched by my Department, but I do not

  239
  think any useful purpose would be served by including them within the reference to the committee in question.
  Mr. EGAN: In view of the fact that 70,000 shipbuilders are out of work, would the right hon. Gentleman expedite the report of this Committee?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, my whole object was that this Committee should report on this urgent point as soon as possible, but I do not want to widen the terms of reference by dealing with subsidies and taxation. We can analyse those questions in another way.

  STATUTORY COMMITTEES (COST).
  Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade the cost to the Exchequer of the 12 statutory committees which have been sitting during the lifetime of the present Government; and if it is intended that any of these statutory committees will be dispensed with?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total cost to the Exchequer, up to date, of the statutory committees to which the hon. Member refers has been since their inception approximately £40,000. The proportion of this cost which is attributable to committees set up by the present Government is £ As regards the last part of the question, two of these committees which were set up under the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920, will lapse in January next in the absence of special provision for their continuance.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: Is it likely that any of these committees will ever be in a position to issue a report or come to any decision?

  SPEEDWAY, LINCOLNSHIRE COAST (INQUIRY).
  Mr. BLINDELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement respecting the inquiry held at Boston in connection with the proposed construction of a speedway on the East Coast between Boston and Skegness; can he say whether the scheme is likely to mature; and will work in connection therewith be available during the present winter?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to his question on this subject on 9th April. I understand that the promoters have the scheme under active consideration, but the Department have not yet received the material required to enable a decision to be reached.
  Mr. BLINDELL: May I ask, further, what is the exact purpose for which this inquiry was held, and, seeing that the inquiry was held 10 months ago, has the Board of Trade nothing to say with regard to the expenditure involved on this scheme?
  Mr. GRAHAM: This is a rather long and complicated story, hut my present information is that the next step lies with the promoters of the scheme, and, until they take it, I am not sure that the Board of Trade can do more.
  Mr. BLINDELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the promoters of the scheme so that the uncertainty which exists in the district in regard to this proposal may be dispelled, and the people may know whether or not there is any hope of the scheme going forward?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Without pledging myself to the precise method, I will certainly make further inquiries as to the exact position and inform the hon. Member.

  INDIA (TARIFFS).
  Sir GERALD HURSTasked the Prime Minister if he has considered the resolution of the, India section of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, approved by its board of directors, urging His Majesty's Government at the Round Table Conference to uphold the necessity of guarding the industrial and commercial existence of Great Britain against suppression by penal tariffs within the Empire; and what steps he proposes to take in consequence?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am not altogether clear as to what is meant by penal tariffs, but, in any case, the hon. Member must realise that there can be no question of limiting the measure of fiscal independence now enjoyed by India.
  Sir G. HURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the disastrous effect of the allowance by his Government of the increased duties in India?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The terminology is somewhat inexact There is no question of allowance by our Government. India has fiscal independence.

  WAGES (REDUCTION).
  Mr. STEPHENasked the Prime Minister if the Government will give facilities for the passing into law of the Bill introduced last Session to make illegal the reduction of wages, in view of the threatened reduction of wages of railwaymen and other industrial workers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill, if passed, would not effect its purpose, so I regret that I cannot give it time.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what alternative plan the Government may have in order to protect the interests of the workers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Quite obviously, that cannot be answered., as on second thoughts my hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree.

  FIGHTING SERVICES (PAY).
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give favourable consideration to the stabilisation of Naval, Army and Air Force pay at the present rates?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have no intention at present of dealing with this matter.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the members of the Fighting Services are not at any disadvantage as compared with members of the Civil Service?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot accept the implication of the hon. and gallant Member's question that they are. The hon. and gallant Member no doubt knows that the method of calculating bonus is a complicated one, but I do not think that members of the Fighting Services are at
  a disadvantage.

  FINANCE BILLS.
  Lieut. - Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Finance Bill, 1930, ordered to be printed on 6th May, was not available till six days before the Second Reading; whether he has received a copy of the resolution of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to the effect that six days afforded insufficient time for public bodies to consider its contents and place their views before local Members of Parliament for use during the Second Reading debate; and will he therefore endeavour to secure that the next Finance Bill shall be available to the public 10 clear days at least before the Second Reading?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, though I may perhaps say that the interval of six days was by no means unusually short having regard to the practice in previous years. In reply to the third part of the question, I will do my best, so far as circumstances permit, to secure that the interval shall be longer.

  NATIONAL DEBT (EXTINCTION).
  Sir HERBERT SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any changes or transactions subsequent to April, 1928, have affected the estimate then made by his predecessor that the entire National Debt would be extinguished in 50 years from that date; and, if so, what is the date of extinction now estimated, assuming that the present permanent debt charge is continued unchanged?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The general average conditions since April, 1928, correspond closely to the forecasts on which the calculation of the Fixed Debt Charge was made.
  Mr. HAYCOCK: Is it not a fact that our actual debit is increasing year by year and that in terms of goods our debt is more than two and a half times as much as it was in 1920?

  INCOME TAXPAYERS.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was

  243
  the number of persons who last year or in the last year for which particulars are available returned their incomes for Lucerne Tax purposes at over £500 a year?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I regret that I cannot furnish this information. The only statistics available regarding the distribution of incomes are those relating to Sur-taxpayers.

  STAMP DUTIES (CHEQUES).
  Sir C. RAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an estimate of the loss of revenue in cheque stamps arising out of the proposal of certain banks to credit periodical payments by firms to their customers by means of a single cheque to the firm's bank, out of which credits will be passed to the banks of the respective customers?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir. There is as yet no material in my possession upon which an estimate could be based.

  LAND VALUATION BILL.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to implement the provisions of the Land Valuation Bill by proposals for the taxation and rating of land values in the Finance Bill next year?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I must ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement.

  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES (COMMISSION).
  Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether those pictures and drawings now stored at the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery which were recently declared to be only of slight interest and not usually exhibited will be sold and the proceeds used for the purchase of pictures, sculpture and other works of art of greater interest?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The trustees are only empowered by law
  244
  to sell works which are unfit for, or not required as part of the national collection, and have not been bequeathed to, or given to, or for the benefit of the nation. Under their powers as so limited, the trustees could only sell a few of the pictures referred to by the hon. Member. As these pictures are of but small value, it is not proposed to put them up to auction.
  Mr. SAMUEL: In view of the Prime Minister having stated that he would introduce a one-Clause Bill giving the National Gallery power to lend pictures, will the Financial Secretary put in another Clause to meet the difficulty of dealing with pictures and drawings of little artistic value?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to have notice of that question.
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he hopes to make a statement on the recommendation of the recent Royal Commission on Museums that a standing commission should be appointed?
  Mr. PETHICK- LAWRENCE: It has been decided to set up a standing commission on Museums and Galleries. Detailed arrangements will be announced as soon as possible.

  TRUSTEE SECURITIES.
  Sir J. FERGUSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to admit further additions of Australian Government securities to the list of trustee stacks under the Colonial Stock Act, 1900?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think the hon. Member misunderstands the position. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not aware that he has any power to refuse admission to the List of Trustee Stocks under the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, of any securities provided the borrowing Government complies with the conditions prescribed under that Act.
  Sir J. FERGUSON: Does the Chancellor still adhere to the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Farnham

  245
  (Mr. A. M. Samuel) the other day, that there was no necessity to review the report of the committee which had revised the list of Treasury trustee securities, notwithstanding the position created by the economic breakdown in Australia at the present moment?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member has, as I believe, correctly quoted the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt my right hon. Friend stands entirely by his statement made only a few days ago.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Did the question of the continuance of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, come up for discussion before the Imperial Conference?

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
  Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the manner in which applications are considered for certificates of exemption by cinematograph exhibitors for non-compliance with the quota provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and by whom these applications are considered?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The Act lays upon the Board of Trade the responsibility for deciding whether to issue a certificate in any case, after considering all the facts. It is the practice, however, to lay every submission in full before the advisory committee for their advice before a decision is taken.
  Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is fair for the independent exhibitors to have to lay their complaints before the trade exhibitors?
  Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend has raised that point on many occasions, but I can only say that I must have regard to the organised bodies. I have no reason to believe that they do not do their work in a fair way.
  Mr. DAY: Does not my right hon. Friend see these reports?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I see some of the reports from time to time, but I am afraid that I have a very large amount of other business.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. TINKER: Before we leave questions, may I raise a point, Mr. Speaker? On the Order Paper are a number of questions to the Secretary of Mines which have not been reached. The same thing happened last week. Is there anything we can do so that these questions can be reached?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Questions of all kinds have been very numerous lately, and, unless some arrangement can be made by which they can be curtailed, I cannot see how these particular questions can be reached.
  Mr. TINKER: Will you be prepared to consider it if an application is made to you to see what can be done?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will give it consideration.

  MINING SUBSIDENCE (COM- PENSATION) BILL
  "to provide for compensation in respect of subsidence damage to certain dwelling-houses and other buildings; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Mardy Jones; supported by Mr. Sitch, Mr. Barr, Mr. Batey, Mr. Tinker, Mr. Bevan, and Mr. Potts; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th December, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

REGISTRATION OF UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS.
Mr. TINNE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of unsatisfied judgments in the High Court and other local courts in the same manner as judgments obtained in county courts."
Many hon. Gentlemen will have received letters from trade protection societies and other bodies advocating this reform. In order to make it clear to those who have not, I put forward the following statement as to the present state of the law. As the law stands at present, judgments against debtors for amounts over £10 obtained in the county courts are registered if not satisfied within 21 days. There is no such regis-

247
tration, however, in the case of unsatisfied judgments in the High Court or other local courts. The result is that debtors for large amounts, who are proceeded against in the High Court and do not meet judgments against them, continue to obtain credit without the possibility of their creditors having any knowledge that unsatisfied judgments exist. In other words, the small trader may be in the position of having his credit stopped, but the larger trader, who has not any registered judgments against him, may fail for a very large amount and no one will be the wiser. On the 3rd November, the Lord Advocate, replying for the Attorney-General to a question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) declined to take any action in the matter owing to the fact that there is some congestion of work in the Lord Chancellor's Department. His answer did not state that he had any objection to the principle, but he merely turned it down on the ground that he could not find time for it.
It seems probable that hon. Gentlemen opposite have no actual objection to the proposal, because in a paper which one understands officially represents the Labour party, a small article appeared on the 22nd May commenting on the annual report of the Incorporated Society of Trade Protection Societies. It is headed "Big Court Judgments kept secret," and goes on to comment that it is a singular legal anomaly that a small man finds that his credit is curtailed as a result of a county court judgment being registered against him, whereas a large competitor may have judgments involving large sums given against him in the High Court without anybody except the court, the creditor and himself being aware of the fact. It looks, therefore, as though hon. Gentlemen opposite will have no difficulty in agreeing to the Motion I am now submitting. As to the method by which this object can be achieved, my gallant and learned Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) was kind enough to help me with the drafting of a two-Clause Bill, which was rather beyond my powers as a layman. The Bill first of all recites Section 183 of the
248
County Courts Act, 1888, which provides for the keeping of a register; and then there is Clause 2, which is in the following words:
"In construing this Act the word Courts' shall include every Court other than a Court of Summary Jurisdiction not included within the purview of Section 183 of the County Courts Act, 1888."
We presume that such a Bill will achieve our object, but I shall be delighted if the Law Officers of the Crown will amend it, if that be necessary, and in the hope that it will be generally unopposed I beg to ask leave to introduce it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tinne, Sir James Reynolds, Mr. Ramsbotham, Major Llewellin, Mr. Oliver, and Sir Henry Cautley.

REGISTRATION OF UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS BILL,
"to provide for the registration of unsatisfied judgments in the High Court and other local courts in the same manner as judgments obtained in county courts," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.
[Bill 50.]

SELECTON (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. William Murdoch Adamson, Mr. Arnott, Mr. Baillie-Hamilton, Mr. Beaumont, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Blindell, Mr. Bracken, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chater, Major Colfox, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Egan, Lord Erskine, Mr. Fison, Mr. Freeman, Captain Gunston, Mr. Harris, Captain Robert Henderson, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Lang, Mr. Frank Lee, Mr. Thomas Lewis, Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Gordon Macdonald, Mr. McShane, Mr. Marcus, Mr. Mills, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Purbrick, Mr. Rowson, Major Beaumont

  249
  Thomas, Mr. Tinker, Mr. Wells, Mr. Wilfrid Whiteley, Mr. Charles Williams, and Mr. Winterton.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee A as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Mr. Alpass, Mr. Oliver Baldwin, Lord Balniel, Sir Ernest Bennett, Captain Sir William Brass, Mr. Cadogan, Captain Cazalet, Viscount Cranborne, Mr. Daggar, Earl of Dalkeith, Major George Davies, Captain Dugdale, Mr. Duncan, Captain Eden, Mr. Ebenezer Edwards, Lord Fermoy, Mr. Gould, Mr. Gray, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Herriotts, Mr. Kedward, Sir Joseph Lamb, Sir Alfred Law, Mr. Lees, Dr. Morris-Jones, Major Muirhead, Sir Douglas Newton, Lady Noel-Buxton, Sir Basil Peto, Mr. Price, Mr. Quibell, Mr. Ben Riley, Mr. Rosbotham, Mr. Scott, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Sinkinson, Mr. Stanley, Mr. William Taylor, Mr. Wallhead, and Mr. William Wright.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL further reported from the Committee; That the following Members representing Scottish Constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to
  a Standing Committee:—Mr. Secretary Adamson, the Lord Advocate, Brigadier-General Sir William Alexander, Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Barr, Mr. Benn, Sir George Berry, Mr. Bootbby, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Buchanan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Clarke, Sir Godfrey Collins, Major Colville, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Dickson, Earl of Dalkeith, Major Dudgeon, Major Elliot, Sir Patrick Ford, Dr. Forgan, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. William Graham, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Thomas Hender- son, Sir Harry Hope, Sir Robert Horne, Dr. Hunter, Lieutenant-General
  250
  Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kirkwood, Miss Lee, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McKinlay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. MacNeill-Weir, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Marcus, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Duncan Millar, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Murnin, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Scott, Mr. Scrymgeour, Dr. Drummond Shiels, Mr. Shinwell, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Sinkinson, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Robert Smith, Mr. Stephen, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Sullivan, Sir Frederick Thomson, Mr. Train, Mr. M`Lean Watson, Mr. James Welsh (Paisley), Mr. James C. Welsh (Coat-bridge), Mr. Westwood, Major McKenzie Wood, and Mr. Wright.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL, further reported from the Committee; That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:—
  That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Ten Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Mr. James Brown, Mr. James Gardner, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. William Nicholson, Sir Hugh O'Neill, Sir Samuel Roberts, Mr. Scurr, Colonel Sir Lambert Ward, and Mr. Cecil Wilson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).
Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of Section 1, sub-section (3), of

251
the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson and Mr. Scurr from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLA- TION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (PANEL).
Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Twenty-five Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir George Berry, Mr. Boothby, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Buchan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Major Colville, Earl of Dalkeith, Sir Patrick Ford, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Hardie, Sir Harry Hope, Sir Murdoch Mac, donald, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Marcus, Mr. Mathers, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Murnin, Mr. Sinkinson, Mr. Skelton, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Watson, Mr. James Welsh (Paisley), Major McKenzie Wood, and Mr. Wright.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE)(PANEL).
Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eleven Members to be the Panel to serve on Standing Orders Committees under Standing Order No. 98: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Batey, Mr. William Bennett, Captain Bourne, Mr. Broad, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. McEntee, Major-General Sir Newton Moore, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Wallhead, and Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (UNOPPOSED BILLS COMMITTEE) (PANEL).
Mr. FREDERICK HALL reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had
252
selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bills Committees under Standing Order 111: Mr. Alpass, Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Ernest Brown, Sir Bertram Falle, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Smith-Carington, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, and Mr. Watkins.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Bill,—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [13 th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—[Mr. Guinness.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: The debate on this Bill last Thursday covered a good deal of ground, which will enable me to put what I have to say on the subject quite briefly. I yield to no one in my desire to see an improvement in the economic production of our land, land which, I think, has as fine possibilities as any agricultural land on the world. Again, I share the genuine desire to see more people living on the land and by the land. But after studying with great care the provisions of this Bill in order to see the methods by which the Government propose to achieve these two very laudable objects, I am filled with the very gravest misgivings. The House, before giving a Second Reading to the Bill, ought to consider very carefully whether its provisions offer a reasonable prospect of success, and whether they are economically sound. Personally, I fear they offer a reasonable prospect neither of improving the production of the soil nor of enabling a larger number of people to live on and by the land.
  I invite the House to look at some of the provisions of the Bill in detail. The first proposal is that the State should engage in the experiment of "large-scale farming." That is a delightfully vague phrase, and it may mean one of three things. It may mean, and probably, in the Minister's mind, does mean, farming according to local custom, farming as other people farm, but on a larger scale. We have many examples of large-scale farming of this kind, going on with varying success, in our country to-day. There are many very highly-skilled farmers, men who have scientific knowledge and the
  276
  experience to put that knowledge into practice, farming 3,000, 4,000, or 10,000 acres or more; and, in addition, we have the knowledge that the State has embarked on these experiments before. I do not want to labour the question, but the experience has not in general been a happy one. My interpretation of the State's experience in these matters and my knowledge—not very great perhaps—of what private enterprise is doing, and has done, in the same direction convince me that the nation will get far better results from large-scale farming by studying the efforts of private enterprise rather than renewing State enterprise, which has been generally unfortunate in the past, and occasionally disastrous
  4.0 p.m.
  There is a second kind of large-scale farming which may be in mind, and that is mechanised farming, if I may apply a word which has become common in connection with military operations—mechanised farming on a very large scale indeed. It has been attempted with varying success in Canada, in the United States, in the Argentine, and possibly elsewhere. A scheme of the kind was started in this country some two years ago—I cannot say how far it has gone—in the neighbourhood of Wallingford, with the advantage of very highly skilled assistance from the Oxford School of Agricultural Engineering. I hope it may achieve success but, how ever successful it may be, I am sure I am right in saying that the land of our country is not generally adapted to this form of farming. We do not possess great stretches of uniform land. The bulk of our agricultural land is broken up into relatively small enclosures by hedges, ditches and so on, and however foolish we may, at first sight, take the small enclosures to be, we have generally found, when we have tried to do away with the hedges, ditches and so on, that it has led only to the waterlogging of our land, and that the hedges and ditches which our forbears created had some very sound and solid reasons for their existence. But, apart from the conviction which I hold that there is very little land suitable for this kind of farming—possibly a stretch round Wallingford may be the best, if not the only one, suitable for an experiment of this kind—the sole object of this

  277
  mechanised farming is to eliminate to the maximum extent the payment of labour. Agricultural labour, underpaid though I consider it to be, is far too heavy a burden for the general profit and loss account of our farmers to-day, situated as they are with a very highly competitive open market, and the sole object of these experiments in mechanised farming is to eliminate the labour costs. If you have a successful mechanised farm, it is a farm not employing a lot of men, but a farm run by a very small number of highly skilled mechanics.
  Is this the time for a Government, faced with the problem of between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 unemployed, to embark upon an experiment the sole economic object of which is to eliminate labour from the land? I very much doubt it. I am not trying to make that point for a partisan reason. There may be a justification for a great landowner trying to keep his estate together by embarking on a big experiment, but there can be no justification for the State doing so when one of its principal concerns is the employment of more of its people. [Interruption.] I am not comparing the experience of one Ministry with the experience of another. I am thinking of the general prospects of the State, and the desire to improve its land and employ its people.
  There is a third form of large-scale farming which may, possibly, be in some people's minds. I do not think it is in the mind of the Minister. I refer to the large industrialised agricultural estates which were relatively common and relatively prosperous in pre-War days in many parts of Europe—Poland, Russia, Austria and other countries. There are some in Poland I know. There may be some still in other parts of Europe, but they are far less common to-day than they were before the War. They were estates where the whole population was employed by a great landowner, who owned his own sugar factories, his mills, his creameries and the other industrial additions of his industrial estate. But the essence of their success was that the scale of wages paid depended entirely upon the price obtainable for the produce in the market. It went up and down, and in bad years, if you look at the records of these estates, you will find
  278
  that the estate was providing a bare living for its people in kind, and paying to them no cash at all. You cannot do that kind of thing in this country, and it is futile to imagine that you can start these great industrialised estates when the whole situation is compromised by a minimum wage, low though that minimum wage may be. It cannot be done.
  I do not know of any more than these three alternative forms of large-scale farming. Whichever is in mind, I am convinced that it would be the height of folly for the State to embark on large capital expenditure for the purpose of any one of the three. We have had, as I said before, unfortunate experience of State experiments of this kind. Without the risk of the nation's capital, we can get the result of the experience of large-scale farming al ready, because relatively large-scale farming is going on in a great number of places, and it is in the hands of people who are competent to make some economic return. Let me mention one or two. A former Member of this House, Mr. A. T. Loyd, has farmed 5,000 to 10,000 acres of arable land where the great international tractor trials took place six weeks ago. I have not asked him, but I have no hesitation whatever in saying that any results, good or bad, that he may have found from his very large agricultural enterprise, extending back now for a number of years, would be made available for the Minister of Agriculture. Then there is Sir Frederick Hiam, a very large agriculturist in the Fen District, with great experience, a man who cultivates more than 1,000 acres of sugar-beet every year, who grows 1,000 acres of carrots, goodness knows what acreage of barley, wheat and other crops—a very big man in the more intensive type of arable farming. I have no doubt whatever that his results are equally available, if they are asked for, as those of Mr. Lloyd, and many others one might mention. Why waste the nation's money in seeking for information which is available already? You will find, if you collect this information, that while it is true that it probably pays infinitely better to farm on a relatively large scale than on a relatively small one, unless that scale is so small that no wage is paid at all, still none of these large-scale farms are

  279
  paying m the present state of our markets.
  In these circumstances, it would be the height of folly to invest the nation's revenue as capital in an enterprise for a very small purpose, and with the prospect of no economic return at all. I do not suppose that the arguments I am making will have any effect, but if the House goes on and does this, I want to ask the Minister this question: Are these subsidised experimental farms to compete with the struggling farmer in our unprotected market? If so—and I imagine that the answer can only be yes—you are doing, by a Measure of this kind, the greatest possible harm to the farmers of this country, particularly the arable farmers who are struggling against adversity, against the competition of a world which is producing more than it can consume.
  Let me turn from large-scale farming to the second idea of the Bill—the reconditioning of land. Under this Bill, it is proposed to authorise the Minister to expend large sums of money on purchasing land which is in need of reconditioning, reclamation, drainage and so on. But why on earth buy it? Surely it would be a very much sounder proposition to secure the employment of your people by encouraging, by grant and so on, the work of catchment boards? We have passed a Land Drainage Act setting up catchment boards to deal with one at least of these problems. Surely it would be better business, by a relatively small expenditure, to seure that this work is done by other people with a moderate amount of State assistance, than to throw away, as it would be throwing away, in my opinion, the money of the State in first of all buying land which ex hypothesi is partially derelict, and, secondly, by spending large sums to bring it into condition? We know quite well that unless you provide a market for this produce, it will be worth less in that condition than the money spent on it. There can be no justification for expenditure of that kind.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: The amount of money you would have to spend in either case would be equal.
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: I think not. Surely under the Land Drainage Act,
  280
  and with the need there is to protect a great deal of land which is not derelict but very productive, and is in danger from the invasion of the sea, and so on, a better opportunity could be given for useful expenditure and useful employment at a relatively small cost than the purchasing by the State for the State of a great deal of land which, under present conditions, can never give to the State an economic return? I cannot help feeling that in putting all these proposals before the House the Government are rather putting the cart before the horse. It is useless, it is folly to expend the nation's revenue, which is short enough and badly needed, on capital commitments of this kind which can never make a return unless you have a secure market. It is folly to do it unless you provide a secure market, but if you began by providing a relatively secure market, this work could he done without the expenditure of this money, and I submit that, if you begin with the market, you will find that it is quite unnecessary to spend the money on either the purchase, the reclamation or the reconditioning which this Bill provides. So much for the reconditioning proposals upon which an expenditure of £5,700,000 is proposed.
  I come now to Part II of the Bill dealing with smallholdings and allotments. I will take smallholdings first. The Financial Memorandum contemplates an expenditure of £640,000 on smallholdings. That is capital expenditure, but, in addition, there are different subsidies and grants, and the Minister is somewhat optimistic when he says that there will be a net return of 2 per cent. in this country and 2 per cent. in Scotland. I am a great believer in smallholdings, but I think anyone who has studied smallholdings will agree with me when I say that their chance of success depends almost entirely upon the selection of the individuals who are to occupy them. As a rule, the successful individual is a man who has had not simply a few months nominal training, but a man who has a lifelong experience of the soil and of the stock that lives on the soil, or who has a wife who is one of those relatively rare persons who has a natural flair for that kind of work.
  If anyone imagines that you can give a man six months' training in the use

  281
  of tools and conclude that that fits him for a successful smallholder it is a great mistake. You want something more than that. I believe that you can substantially increase the number of smallholdings, and, as agricultural unemployment tends to decrease, I believe you will have a flow of people who have lived all their lives on the land, and who have the knowledge of what the land can do. I refer to those people who have had experience of handling stock, including everything alive on the land. It is not everybody who can make hens lay eggs, and it is not experience which is achieved after a few weeks' training. In order to make smallholdings pay you want to catch those men with a lifelong experience of this sort before they become unemployed and keep them on the land. By adopting that course smallholdings might be a success, but to imagine that you are going to make them successful by bringing large numbers of the unemployed from our industrial centres and placing them on the land is a great mistake, because it cannot be done.
  It is only a relatively small number of countryfolk who are suitable for this work, and they would have to work day in and day out, and become slaves of production on the land in order to make a success of it. You must have men with a knowledge of what the land can do; they must know how to tend to their chickens and pigs and so on, and you will not find that class of men among the unemployed in our great industrial towns. If you attempt to increase the number of smallholdings to any very large extent you are courting disaster and throwing away the money of the nation. At the same time, you will be doing nothing to help the unemployed. There is nothing more heartbreaking than that a man should be led to believe that he is going to make a living out of a pretty little house and a few acres of land, with a couple of pigs and a dozen hens, and then to find that he does not understand the work, and that he begins to go downhill instead of uphill. That will break the man's heart, and it is no kindness to an unsuitable man to place him upon work of that kind and encourage him to think that he is going to make a living out of it, because he will not. I am quite sure that it will be sheer waste for the State to
  282
  embark upon a big smallholdings scheme of that kind.
  I do not want to enlarge upon that, but I must say a word or two about allotments. This is the one good point in the Bill, although it is not without its difficulties. I had the privilege this morning of listening to the Prime Ministers speech at Caxton Hall, and I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said that it means a tremendous lot to a man who is down and out to get work again. It is a good thing for all of us, whether we are unemployed or overworked, to borrow a spade, or a fork, or a hoe, and dig. It is good for everybody to do work on the land. I quite agree with the Prime Minister that in so far as you can give work of that kind to men who are unemployed you are probably doing them a good deal of good both physically and morally, whether the thing pays or not. I do riot think it will pay, but it will be justified by the physical and moral good that will result.
  I want to say a word of warning, although I am aware that the dangers of this Measure are mostly present to hon. Members. The extension of smallholdings in the immediate neighbourhood of big industrial centres is not an easy thing, because it is extremely difficult to provide any sort of security of tenure, and er hypothesi the land which is most convenient for this purpose is very often land wanted for building, and you cannot be moving your allotments further out of the town every couple of years. That is one of the difficulties. I also see another difficulty. If the movement for providing allotments for the unemployed is widely extended, there is a distinct risk, which must be foreseen and guarded against, that it may come to many people's minds that the cultivation of subsidised allotment plus the dole is the whole duty of man. I am not quite certain how you could stop that. I do not suggest that that would become general, but there may be many people who think that by working an allotment and drawing the dole they are doing their job. That is a risk which the Minister of Agriculture must provide against. [Interruption]. I hope the dole will become very much less general, but I fear that there is a danger—I think the hon. Member sees what is in my mind—that it may satisfy the ambition of citizenship of some in-

  283
  dividuals if they feel that they can live on their little allotment with the help of the dole.
  Apart from those details, there are two features of this Bill which cause me great misgivings. One of them is the very wide powers which it is proposed to give to the Minister. There are something like nine or ten Clauses which propose to give the Minister new powers of overriding local authorities or acting concurrently on the same lines. Both those things are thoroughly bad. We have deliberately created our system of local authorities, and conferred upon them certain powers, and we must be very careful in extending the rights of any Minister to over-ride those local authorities, or we are apt to destroy the whole system of local government and its efficiency. I think the Bill goes too far in that direction, and it would be the gravest mistake to give the Minister or any Minister one quarter of the powers which are proposed in this Bill.
  The last point I desire to make is upon the question of the extension of the employment of Government officials. We do not know to what extent those officials will be increased by this Bill, but the explanatory Memorandum which is attached to the Bill informs us that the increase of staff "will clearly be large," and I think it will be very large. This House, which is the guardian of the nation's finances, must not vaguely pass a Measure to create a large increase of staff without knowing where its responsibilities will end. At present, we have not the least idea, and we cannot get the information from the Minister or anyone else as to what will be the limitations of this increase of staff. This increase is going to take place at a. time when we want to reduce the expenditure of all Government Departments, and I think it would be quite wrong for this House to grant these vague powers without knowing definitely what their maximum cost will be.
  I fear that, in my desire to he brief, I have dealt with these points very inadequately. To sum up, I would say that, viewed from the standpoint of economy, the only possible merit of this Bill is that it gives an opportunity for the waste of further millions. It may have a value from a party point of view, and I rather suspect that the dressing
  284
  of the party window for electoral purposes may have something to do with its provisions. For that I care nothing; the party who are responsible for it will want all the help they can get, and I do not grudge them a bit of window dressing if they can find it in this Bill. From the point of view of unemployment, I think the benefits of the Bill are extremely doubtful, and from the point of view of agriculture I am quite convinced that the Bill is a delusion and a sham.
  Mr. GOULD: The debate so far has given the House just two bright spots in a very dark picture. One of the Scottish Members opposite reserved his opposition to Part II of the Bill, but generally was in opposition to the major part of the Bill. During the debates on the Colonial Development Bill early last Session, I heard from the Opposition benches a principle that impressed me very much. It was that a Government could and should make ventures and take risks which no private individual or company could be expected to undertake. I regarded that as a very bold and sensible statement, and, when I came to read this Bill and consider its provisions, I thought that that principle could be applied very wisely to the basis of this Bill.
  The Minister is facing a very big task in relation to land settlement and the experiments which he foreshadows in the Bill. As representing the interests of my own county of Somerset, I regard Part II of the Bill as the most important, and, after a conference which took place during the week-end, and at which the contents of Part II were discussed, I am more than ever strengthened in my view that the Minister will be staggered, when the Bill becomes an Act, to find what a number of claimants will embarrass him for holdings under this part of the Bill. I have no doubt as to the nature of the applicants and their suitability. Some of us have a very close relationship with and experience of these men and their homes, and we know that the women are as adaptable as the men to this particular task. I regretted to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) say that he thought that the Bill was mere electoral window dressing. We have very much to learn from the Opposition in relation to that matter. I have in

  285
  my hand a leaflet, and, when the hon. and gallant Member spoke of "a pretty little place," I thought he must have been acquainted with this leaflet. It reads thus:
  "WHAT A PRETTY LITTLE PLACE!
  "An acre or so of land, a cottage, a small barn, a toolshed, a pigstye, a fowlhouse, and a liking and ability for the land.
  "One can then be very happy and contented.
  "The Unionist party believes in cottage and smallholdings.
  "It is the only party that does.
  "If the Unionist party gets in at this Election, it will push along the smallholding and cottage holding movement, and will give facilities—
  for occupation if you don't want to buy;"—
  that is very accommodating—
  "for ownership when you do."
  I have heard gibes flung about regarding bribes and I would like to ask whether this last sentence is not near to a bribe:
  "The chance of becoming a smallholder is yours if you vote Unionist."
  I have been through the county of Somerset, north, south, east and west, and have been looking for these pretty little places. I have two brothers who have spent their lives in this sort of work, and I have many very enlightened farmers in my constituency who are keenly interested in, this work. Some of them are so enlightened that they are even voting Labour, and I believe that the indictment that has been put forward against this part of the Bill can be falsified by data in hundreds and thousands of cases. If the Minister of Agriculture, after this Bill passes into law, gets two years of experience under it, not only will there be useful window dressing, but we shall have men and women on the land who are now dragging out an existence in unemployment and on smallholdings of such a nature that they are not able, at least at present, to maintain their families and their homes on them. I believe that it is wise for the Government to risk public money in this great industry, and particularly in the smallholdings and allotment sections. I believe that it will be money well spent, and that the country will endorse it to the extent of 100 per cent. If there is anything that the county of Somerset will endorse, it is a bold and courageous
  286
  expenditure of public money—wisely, yes; in selected cases, yes.
  We can find at the Exchanges numbers of men and women who are living in semi-rural distracts, within a low miles of the main agricultural areas, with perhaps a factory here and a factory there. These men and women have an inclination and a desire to go on to the land, despite the taunt of slavery. If the House will not mind a homely note, I would mention that a twin brother of mine and myself started out together on a holding, and, although he is youthful in age, he has been able, out of a holding of 60 acres, to put the whole of his savings either into the farm or into reserve, and he is now released from the whole responsibility of the holding and has sufficient to retire on. If that is the form of slavery to which the party opposite objects, I would say to the Minister, get on with this form of slavery and let our men have an opportunity. I can give him more cases than one. I know men who are keenly desirous of getting into these holdings, and I believe that they are eagerly awaiting this Bill, which I hope will speedily become an Act of Parliament. In the light of the circular from which I have quoted, I looked up what resulted from that election, and how many holdings the Act of 1926 pushed through. I found that in 1926 Somerset boasted of one new holding, and that rather disappointed me. Referring again to the sentence:
  "The chance of becoming a smallholder is your if you vote Unionist,"
  surely more than one voted Unionist who might have had an inclination to take up such holdings. There are over 500 on the waiting list to-day. The party opposite cannot escape from the position which they took up during an election in the days when the Labour Government is asking them to fulfil one of their pledges, and we ask them to join with us in honouring a pledge which was given so long ago. In 1927 six of these holdings were established; in 1928, nine, in 1929, four, and there is a long list of disappointed applicants who welcome this Bill. I do not ask that they should transfer their political allegiance, but they will at least see that my pledge is being fulfilled. It was a very small one, because I doubted whether the opportunities would come to us to put forward

  287
  a bold, comprehensive scheme. This is far bigger than I anticipated when I was a candidate in the election, and I can only hope that, When the Minister has this power and applications come forward, we shall transfer these people from the Employment Exchange and the Unemployment Insurance Fund to the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, and spend money in making independent citizens on the land rather than allowing them to eke out their existence at the Exchange.
  A point that has often been stressed is that of the relationship of the folk across the sea who send us great bulks of commodities. One cannot face an issue like this without taking the wider view, and asking whether all parties in this House regard the balance of trade as satisfactory. I know what the answer will be; it will be in the negative. None of us are happy as to the question of exports and imports, and £300,000,000 of our imports are food and the essential things on which our people live. That is putting aside manufactured articles or raw materials. Our imports of food include £55,000,000 worth of pork products, £14,000,000 worth of cheese, £54,000,000 worth of butter, £8,000,000 worth of lard, and £20,000,000 worth of eggs. Think of the potentialities of counties like Somerset in relation to these articles. As regards the Danes, whose land is not as good as ours, if you ask whether the skill of our men is equal to theirs, we answer "Yes." Is their market protected or subsidised? Not at all. Are we prepared to admit that, with better soil, with men and women equal, with a better market nearer to the holdings, these articles, which I find on farmers' tables, cannot be produced here? I go to breakfast at a farmhouse, and I find Danish bacon on the breakfast table of a farmer in the county of Somerset. It is a question of organisation, good will, specialisation and selection. We can feed the British bacon-buying public, we can meet the egg market, the butter market and the cheese market, and we can lessen our imports by £100,000,000 worth of food, if this Government has the will to go through with it.
  I mention that as one of the contributions that will at least ease the balance of trade between this and other countries
  288
  of the world. The cry is that it is not opportune, that it will cost money, that it is so difficult to get the right men. None of these are sound reasons why we should not go on as speedily as we can with this scheme. I compliment the Minister, and I believe that the House and the country are ready to give him an endorsement of his policy. Certainly, minor Amendments will be necessary in a big Measure such as this, but I hope that the Minister, when he has got the Financial Resolution, will get the Bill into Committee as speedily as possible and hasten its passage to the Statute Book, thereby giving new hope to thousands of our men and women in this country, who will regard his work as a boon to them and to the country at large.
  Colonel LANE FOX: If the Bill which we are considering were to do the things to which the hon. Member has just alluded, if it were really going to help marketing, to improve organisation and generally to benefit farming, it would have very general support on this side of the House. If, later on, the Minister produces a Bill with these objects, he will find a very different attitude towards those problems from that which he will find towards this Bill. It is because the Bill does nothing very useful and does a great many things that are seriously considered harmful rather than advantageous to agriculture and to unemployment that we are opposing it. I am not going to argue whether it is a Socialist Bill or not. I want to argue it on its merits. Merely to say it is a Socialist Bill is to encourage hon. Members opposite to support it, and I do not see any reason for doing that. There is a great deal to be said against the Bill on its merits, and it is quite unnecessary to attack it on the ground of it being Socialist.
  The question we are all asking ourselves is: Will it relieve unemployment, will the money that is to be spent be wasted, and will it help agriculture? In the first Clause, the Minister suggests an Agricultural Corporation. I need not dwell long on that, because there are plenty of indications already that that part of the Bill is not likely to go through. It has been pretty well criticised on all sides of the House. The Minister himself spoke of it with no enthusiasm. He

  289
  mainly supported it on the ground that it had been suggested by an agricultural Commission a great many years ago, when conditions were different, and I think the general feeling of the House is that it is certainly part of the Bill which may very well be dispensed with. It is certainly not worth a million of money. It is true that big-scale experiments have been tried with varying success under different conditions. We have quite sufficient experience to guide us, and for the Minister to spend £1,000,000, which is badly needed in other directions, on experiments of this sort would be a very serious mistake.
  I should like to come to the question of demonstration farms and smallholdings, on which the Minister wishes to spend a very large sum of money. We already have all over the country a great number of demonstration farms. There is hardly a single county council or university which is not in some way linked up with demonstration, experiment, and research. A vast amount of invaluable work is being done already. But far the best demonstration you can have is the demonstration of the successful farmer and smallholder. I should like to compare the method suggested with that employed in Yorkshire, which has proved eminently successful. We have found that far the best way of carrying on experiments is to carry them on on actual farms. There are plenty of farmers who are very enthusiastic about these things, and who are prepared to have experiments on their farms. The whole of the West Riding is mapped out in areas, and in the centre of each we have an officer who conducts, reports on, and helps these experiments. Every farmer who has a successful experiment on his farm is an actual propagandist. He goes to market, and tells his friends what is happening, and that is far the best way of spreading science, far better than to spend large sums of State money. It can be better done by private owners who are making a success of these things. All over the country you will find farmers who are most anxious to have these experiments conducted on their own farms and who will be most ready to give the results of the experiments for the advantage of their neighbours and the country.
  290
  May I again illustrate the question of demonstration in smallholdings conducted by committees in the West Riding. The Yorkshire Committee wished to start a demonstration of smallholdings on 35 acres of exceptionally good land, and it seemed a fairly easy proposition. They tried it, and they could not make a financial success of it. Whereupon they handed it over to one of their number to carry it on himself. After a few years he is making a very large profit and has effectively proved that he has been able to do what a committee could not do. I believe that is a case the Minister knows about, but I should be glad to give particulars to anyone who wants them. That is a case where a committee lost money regularly, but one capable, experienced man who understood his job was able to make a very considerable profit. It is a great mistake to assume that all farmers are against science and scientific methods. It is the sort of thing people have read in books and think it is a fact. People who have not much experience of the subject do not realise, even if those things were true in the past, how utterly things have changed now in the attitude that farmers take towards science, the scientific application of chemicals and so on, to agriculture. In Yorkshire, the old type of stick-in-the-mud farmer, who is supposed not to believe in anything that his father did not do before him, is practically extinct. A new generation has arisen.
  I remember very well years ago the opening of the first demonstration farm in Yorkshire and the amount of scepticism among the farmers as to what it would do. The enthusiastic gentleman who took the chair at the luncheon did not improve matters by telling the farmers of the various experiments that were being conducted, and talking of feeding calves on skimmed milk and castor oil instead of skimmed milk and cod liver oil. All that sort of thing is changed, and in Yorkshire certainly the assistance of the Leeds University and the admirable professor of agriculture we have there has been clearly appreciated and generally used. My own farm has been running in constant touch with Leeds University for years, and all round me I find that the professors and their assistants are going round and the farmers are making the greatest use of

  291

  them in every direction. In the West Riding, we have made smallholdings a great success, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of smallholdings.
  It is suggested that we do not want men to go back on the land. Obviously, anyone who is interested in the country must want to see the greatest number of successful and prosperous men for his own private advantage if for no other reason. But we want to see these things successful. We do not want the Minister to take unsuitable men and put them in a position in which they cannot possibly make a living and must starve. The West Riding smallholdings have been so successful because we have been very careful to put the right men on to the holdings, and to give them good land. It is ridiculous to put a man with no real experience on bad land, because he cannot possibly make a success of it. Practically all the smallholdings in the West Riding are doing well, and we want more of them. I do not mean to say there is no waiting list. One great advantage the smallholder has is that he is free from the labour trouble. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not suggest that the agricultural labourer's wages should come down. I agree that they are too low already. What has really made farming difficult is the rigidity of hours, because frequently a job that could be finished with another half-hour's work is left undone and men and horses have to go back to finish it on the following day. There is no doubt that this want of elasticity has troubled the average farmer very much. The smallholder is free from that. On occasion, the smallholders in the West Riding work night and day, men, women and children. Of course, it is their family job. That is an advantage which the smallholder will always enjoy under present conditions over the ordinary farmer.
  I do not think the hopes of this Bill can he based on the successes of smallholdings which have been reported, because in so many cases they have simply been the result of men of experience being put on to good land and suitable conditions being provided in every way. The trainee class of smallholders has been almost entirely a. failure, certainly in Yorkshire, and I believe it has been the same all over the country.
  292
  Our past experience will riot justify us in thinking that those who have not much knowledge, and who are going to be put through a course of training, will make the same success as experienced men. It is no use saying in the Bill that you are only going to have suitable men. There will be thousands of applications if the State offers money and land free. The urge will be to get the unemployed on to the land, and it will be extremely difficult for the Minister to refuse to put them there, and large sums of money will be wasted and thousands of men put to do a job at which they cannot make a success. But there is something worse. It is going to be extremely unfair to existing smallholders who have risked their capital and are making good. You are going to put these other men there merely because they are unemployed, and you will be subsidising competition with those who are finding it difficult enough to make smallholdings pay at all. It is most unfair to them.
  What is going to be the value of the subsidy to the nation? The Bill does nothing that is going to make agriculture pay. If agriculture were paying properly, many of the difficulties would not occur. For instance, no one will spend money on draining land which it does not pay to cultivate. If it were made possible to make a living out of agriculture, its difficulties would disappear. It is a, waste of money to use this subsidy merely to put men on to the land without assuring them that agriculture will be assisted. The way to get more men back on to the land is to make it worth while for them to go there. You will soon get many men on to the land and you will prevent men from going off the land you do something which will give them a chance of making a livelihood. As long as dumping is allowed to go on unchecked and the present rate of prices stands, how can you expect men to go back on to the land? How can they possibly live? Day after day and week after week men are flocking away from the land. Land is being allowed to go to grass. The way to get these men on to the land is to make the conditions good and give them a chance of making a livelihood.
  5.0.p.m.
  The Government are deceiving the unemployed by this Bill. They are going

  293
  to put the unemployed on to the land and tell them that they will make a livelihood, although they will have no chance of doing so. The Bill is exactly on the same lines as the Education Bill in connection with which they are telling the children that they are keeping them out of employment in order to give them a further year's education although they have not made preparations to provide that education properly. It is a very unfair thing to deceive your unemployed in this way by subsidising competition against the existing smallholders.
  Earlier in my speech I asked whether this Bill was going to relieve unemployment, whether the money which was to be spent would be well spent, and whether the Bill would help agriculture? I do not believe that any of these questions can be answered in any other way than by the answer "No." I believe that this Bill is not going to help employment, and I am certain that it is not going to do anything to help agriculture. An hon. Gentleman, speaking on the opposite side of the House, gave the pedigree of this Bill as being "by unemployment out of agricultural depression." Surely that is a depressing pedigree. Such a Bill is not likely to have much success. I suggest a better description of this Measure, namely, that it is "by ignorant extravagance out of ignorant election promises." A Bill which is brought forward in that manner will have no support from me. If I thought that it was going to help employment, I would do something to help it. If I thought that it was going to help agriculture, I would do something to help it. But believing that it will do nothing in this direction, that it will do harm to the country, be a great waste of public money and of no real relief or help to employment, I certainly cannot vote for it.
  Mr. QUIBELL: I desire to express appreciation of this Measure and of the attempt which the Minister for Agriculture is making to help the countryside. I cannot say that I am as enamoured of Clause 1 of the Bill as I am of certain other Clauses. I think that the money to be allocated to that part of the Bill could be far better spent in another direction. There are plenty of demonstration farms already, and I think, as some
  294
  speakers have said, that, as far as production is concerned, a large number of the agriculturists in this country have very little to learn from other people in the production of cereals, etc., and in general farming. Further, I agree very largely with the speech which was delivered last week by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), that the real object of this Bill is to get more people back to the land; more people employed on the land.
  Mechanisation and rationalisation are terms which are used very frequently in this House, but, as far as the countryside is concerned, I believe that the finest type of farm that we could have is the 350 to 400-acre farm. I do not agree with the demonstration farms of 2,000 or 3,000 acres. I can remember 400-acre farms where there were 10 men and two boys employed regularly. The same class of farm to-day would employ about half the number of men. As far as the unit is concerned, the most successful farm, at any rate in the part of the country to which I belong, seems to be the 350 acre or the 400-acre farm. The main object of dealing with agriculture is to bring prosperity to the countryside and to increase the number of men who can be employed successfully in the countryside. We want more intensive agriculture. I am not unmindful of the point which was put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox), that whatever the state of agriculture, we must, through the results of the Imperial Conference or the establishment of import boards, deal with the question of prices. I can understand that, whatever we do with regard to agriculture, there will be difficulties unless we have something like the fixation of prices, or, at any rate, assured prices. I think that that will be admitted by hon. Members in every part of the House.
  But we must not forget the fact that the Selborne Commission which was set up by the Coalition Government reported that in Germany they employed 18 on every 100-acre farm, whereas in this country we employ only five per 100-acre farm. The point I wish to make is, that as far as the countryside is concerned, if it is reconditioned or if we deal with the economic side of the industry, it can absorb far more men that those who are employed at the present time. Until we

  295
  deal with the economic side of the industry, we cannot really put agriculture on to its feet.
  The questions of reconditioning and reclamation are points which are dealt with in this Bill, and I think they are very good points. We are not without some experience in the Valley of the Trent where a large part of the Gains-borough Division was reclaimed by the Dutch engineers. It was reconditioned and now consists of some of the most fertile land to be found in the kingdom. During my lifetime the reclamation has gone on, and there are still hundreds of thousands of acres which can be made the richest land in the country by such a process. In so far as this Bill deals with that side of the question, I commend it to the attention of the House, and I also commend the Minister of Agriculture for its introduction. Reclamation is worth while, apart from the economic reason, because it extends the area within which a certain number of human beings may be allowed to live. There is a quotation from Voltaire which puts the position very nicely so far as the neglect of the industry is concerned. He said that they, the politicians, had discovered in their fine politics the art of causing those to die of hunger who, by cultivating the earth, gave the means of life to others. That, so far as the countryside is concerned, is true. We on this side, and I hope many hon. Members on the other side, feel very strongly that the men who are suffering most in agriculture are the poor agricultural labourers. Many of them are looking for work and there is none to go to, and, even when they find work, the wages that they receive are so miserable that they are unable to put something aside for a rainy day. They can only go to the public assistance committees for aid when they are out of work. It is to their interest, as well as to the general interest of the country, that the general problem of agriculture should he dealt with in the way indicated in this Measure.
  Some remarks have been made as to the suitability of a prospective tenant for a smallholding. There are a large number of smallholdings in Lincolnshire, and from my experience I cannot say who ought to be the judge of the suitability of a tenant. How can one judge
  296
  fairly until they have been given a trial? Members of the Opposition have had some experience in this matter, and no doubt it makes them feel a little sure. I have been looking up some figures relating to one of their experiments with regard to a holding and settlement scheme. They established 150 holdings in their grand scheme. The income from those 150 holdings is £8,000 per annum, and the actual cost to the county council concerned is £21,000, or a loss of £113,000, or something over £80 per holding per year. I hope, as the Minister of Agriculture said, we are going to take their experience to guide us as to what we should do in the circumstances. A sum of £1,500 was paid for one holding alone, although it was previously let at £30 per year. immediately the holding was bought—and it had to be bought—the house had to be reconditioned, and the rent to the smallholder was fixed at £80 odd. This unfair burden was placed upon the shoulders of the smallholder. The landlord, as a matter of fact, sold the holding for £1,500 when it was worth only £600, and 6¼ per cent. interest was charged to the holder who could not make a living. Many of the smallholders in that area whom I know very well have lost all their savings in their smallholdings. They did not lose their money because they were not fitted to cultivate the holding, because of the amount of money they were charged. The difference between what they paid and the rent the farmer paid was so great that many of them lost their money in attempting to make a living on the smallholding.
  Sitting here, I sometimes agree with many things which are said by hon. Members on the other side, because there is no side or party which is 100 per cent. wrong or 100 per cent. right in any of these matters. I have a paper in my hand, which was printed in 1819, showing that the same kind of appeals were made on behalf of the farm labourer in those days. The farm labourer was in precisely the same position. We are lamenting the same conditions to-day. Numbers are going out of agriculture year after year, 100,000 fewer being employed today than was the case in 1921. They had a conference similar to the conferences which Members of this House have addressed, and appeals were made to the Government of that day that they

  297
  should do something for agriculture. In those days they wanted Protection or, if you like to call it by the name, import boards. Unemployment and poverty were rife and the landlords and the best farmers called a conference to petition the Government to do something to relieve the poverty which existed on the countryside.
  If this Bill is going to make a contribution, and I hope it is, I trust that it will be strengthened in Committee, I hope that so far as the farming side is concerned in regard to reconditioning the Minister of Agriculture will be strong and firm. Recently, I had to do certain work on a big estate. I am now a builder and contractor. It is not a very good game, hut it is a better one than farming. I visited an estate in a part of North Wales well known to hon. and right hon. Members, and I looked round some of the farms. To the farmer the farm buildings arc the tools of his trade, just as a spade and a trowel are the tools of my trade. I found the most abominable conditions prevailing. Such conditions could not he fittingly described in this House. Hon. Members would have to see them to believe them. I found dairy farms without water supply, shippons without floors, farms without proper rooms, farm servants having to sleep over the shippons, in the hay-loft. I said to an agent in one case: "This dilapidation is due to lack of painting." He turned to the farmer and said: "How long is it since it was painted?" The farmer replied, "Well, I have been here 47 years and it has not been done in my time." From what I could see of the place, I should say that that farm had not been done up for a century. If it was not paying the landlord, at any rate the landlord was taking everything out of it and putting nothing into it.
  I repaired some of these places, botched them up if you like to call it so. In places where there was no water supply I found farmers sending milk to town, and carrying on with very great difficulty. If this Bill will help to remedy such conditions, in the interests of public health and in the interests of the countryside it ought to be done. I hope that the Bill can be amended so that reconditioning will apply in such a way as to compel the landlord to do the work, and if he cannot do so provision ought to be
  298
  made for the Government doing the work and charging him in the same way that is done in other cases. If we do that we shall do a good deal to help agriculture, the tenant farmer and the countryside. The conditions to which I have referred do not apply merely to one part of the country, although I must confess that the worst experience I have had is in the country represented by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that beautiful country of Wales. Such conditions may relate to the worse kind of landlordism. If they are to be tackled the sooner they are tackled, the better it will be for agriculture. I trust that the Bill will receive a big majority on its Second Reading and that it will quickly pass into law to bring help and hope to the countryside.
  Mr. HURD: Some of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) make a strong appeal to those on this side who look upon agriculture with deep sympathy. His is not the only speech in which there has been expressed a wish that we should be able to regard agriculture and its difficulties more apart from party differences than we have done in the past. If only we could find some common ground and some reason to hope for a continuity of policy in respect to agriculture from Parliament to Parliament and from Government to Government we should be doing a great service to this industry to which we are so devoted. The present methods only produce chopping and changing which is most disastrous to the best forms of agriculture, most disheartening to those who are best qualified to carry through with success and also most disturbing to all concerned. In agriculture you cannot hope to achieve success if you are merely looking to to-morrow; you must have longish views, and if you are not in a position to take those longish views then nine times out of 10 you will fail. If you have this non-continuity of policy, this chopping and changing about from party to party and Parliament to Parliament you are doing agriculture a very grave disservice.
  We all know what happens in this House. A Ministry comes in and in an endeavour to fulfil its election pledges it brings forward a large Measure of agricultural reform. We spend weeks in the

  299
  discussion of that Measure, some party feeling is displayed and in the end the Measure is passed, Surely, common sense would suggest that we should be able to watch the development of that Measure in operation, see what mistakes are in it and how those mistakes can be amended and see whether we cannot on that basis build up a better arrangement than that which existed before the new method came in. That is not the course we adopt. Another party comes in and it, too, has its election pledges to carry through. It throws over the existing method, over which we have spent so much effort, and starts new ideas, with the result that you get confusion, the absence of progress and agriculture suffers every time, while Parliamentary methods fall very largely into disrepute.
  I have some personal association with the Minister of Agriculture. He and I are Wiltshire men by adoption, and it is my good fortune to be in his company on occasions in the genial atmosphere of agricultural gatherings. I had hopes that when he succeeded to his present position we should be able to find in various sections of this House some considerable measure of agreement in respect to agricultural policy, under his guidance. My hopes were strengthened by his attitude towards marketing reform. Unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman has done a very great service to agriculture by the way in which he has continued and strengthened that measure of reform. I hope he will go a little cautiously and remember that the agricultural mind is slow to move and will not be "dray." He will bear in mind that it is said of the Wiltshire man, "You may coax him, but he will not be 'druv'" That applies to a large section of the agricultural community, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember it in his marketing reform scheme. Enormous progress has been made with the scheme and I hope that the progress will continue. In regard to the present Measure I was hoping that we should find grounds of agreement and progress in respect to some of the matters dealt with. Reclamation has been spoken of, a most important matter, on which there need be no party disagreement. I was hoping that we might find some ground of agree-
  300
  meat with regard to smallholdings, allotments and farm research.
  Some of us have made persistent efforts to find common ground of action in regard to matters of agricultural progress but it is obvious that there is an unbridgeable gulf between us in some matters. We cannot work together in regard to tariffs or in regard to import boards so far as they rely upon State Socialism, as we regard it; but there has been in these informal discussions a surprising measure of agreement in regard to some matters which are dealt with in the Bill. The debate shows that to be so. There is a keen lesire, for instance, that every man who pants allotment and is proved to be qualified should have an allotment, and that every man who wants a smallholding and is shown to be qualified should have that smallholding, and that we should use every possible means to find in this way a new outlet for the unemployed men who are so hopeless in their outlook and to whom a Measure of this sort may very well bring new hope and new confidence.
  I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Gould). He has beaten me at elections and I have beaten him and we are both here to-night finding a large measure of agreement in some of these agricultural matters. His knowledge of Somerset and my knowledge of Somerset miners coincides in this, that it is not true to say that there are not many men engaged in industrial pursuits who are not well fitted to occupy the land and make a success of it. I know, and he knows, that in opening flower shows and other horticultural exhibitions in the mining districts of Somerset it has been our privilege to hand the prize for the best cultivator of the soil to a miner who, in his spare time, has devoted himself to the land. Many of these men are well qualified to become successful smallholders, in spite of the great difficulties attending that occupation. Some of the most successful settlers in the Canadian North West, the prairie country, have, you find out when you visit them, antecedents who were English townsmen. You will have to go to the Midlands of England to find the man. Mr. Wheeler, who produced the prize wheat for the North American Continent. A townsman, a craftsman, an artisan, he got the flair and had the aptitude and he has made a great

  301
  success of his farming life. A good pro portion of Mae men now employed in our towns—I do not say the large proportion—have zest, adaptability, love of hard work and quickness of understanding, and where they have proved the capacity we should do what we can to put them on the land.
  Why has there not been more rapid progress in this matter? A good deal has been said about Conservative legislation, and brickbats have been thrown. I am not interested in that, but I am interested in finding some ground on which we can make more progress in the future than in the past. We are all agreed that the main cause which has held up the development of allotments has been the want of security: the advent of the builder and encroachment upon the allotment land. A man puts his best into his allotment, it pleases his wife very much and he is happy about it, then along comes the grasping hand of the man who has the power to displace him in order to put up houses there. Surely it is possible to obtain that security by common agreement. We can do so by giving more power to local authorities but not by supplanting them. If you once start supplanting local authorities in local affairs you are taking a step which will be most detrimental in matters of local government.
  Take smallholdings. What is the difficulty there? There is, first of all, the difficulty of finance; and it is a very real difficulty in Wiltshire and in the county of Somerset. It is the fear of the burden of the rates which has led to hesitation in developing the smallholdings system. But a more important deterrent has been bad markets. I will not dwell on the remedy for had markets at this time, but I am quite sure that if the Government take measures to deal with the question of bad markets and the question of finance the Minister of Agriculture will be surprised at the pace at which the smallholdings and allotments provisions will be operated. I am proud of our smallholders in Wiltshire. I have had a long experience of the farmers and smallholders in the West country and I have never seen finer occupiers of land than you will find in parts of my own Division of Devizes. But of what avail is it for them to turn out their finest vegetables and foodstuffs if the smallholder, when he sends it to Bristol, finds
  302
  that there is no market there for it. Until we deal with the question of bad markets we shall leave the smallholders in a more or less perilous position.
  It must not be said that the hesitation to deal with the question of smallholdings has been due to any lack of enterprise or capacity on the part of the smallholder himself. It is not true. It is obviously our duty to give these men a better chance and fair play as against those who are destroying the markets which should be theirs. There arc new men coming along. In my own county we have new complements of men coming forward, and they too should have a chance. Is the Minister of Agriculture satisfied that this Bill is really going to give them a chance when it proposes to uproot methods which have worked well in the past in spite of so many difficulties? In my own county of Wiltshire the relations between the smallholder and the county council, under the progressive policy which has been adopted, have been of the most amicable nature. There is mutual confidence and they work very well together; and if the difficulties of finance and markets could be met you could not do better than preserve that relationship of confidence, that local knowledge, and build on it an extension of the smallholding system. Is it really imaginary that Whitehall will do better than the method which is now working with so much success in spite of all the difficulties? Looking at the gigantic losses of the past how can we contemplate anything better coming out of Whitehall than what has already been achieved I Sir Lawrence Weaver says:
  "I am forced by my experience, a pretty long one, to conclude that a commercial undertaking, such as farming must be, cannot be managed from Whitehall."
  Unless I misread this Bill Whitehall swoops dawn and displaces the county council. [How. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes, the county council is to be eliminated and to become merely the agent of the Ministry of Agriculture. We know what that means. We have had experience of that in the matter of the roads, in which the county council has become the agent of the Ministry of Transport. Take the widening of the Great Bath Road, the county council dare not move a finger, the direction is entirely in the Ministry of Transport. The same thing will happen here. The county councils will

  303
  become the mere lackeys of Whitehall and you will lose all that interest and initiative which has existed in the past. Much the same is true of demonstration farms. What is the necessity for this vast proposed expenditure of public money on demonstration farms? Come down to Wiltshire and see what happened only last week. The Council Council of Wiltshire, through its excellent agricultural officer, were anxious to test a new plant in Wiltshire soil which produces a fibre and which if it succeeds will enable us to grow in our own land a great part of the hemp which we now import from abroad in such huge quantities. They have been testing this on three of the best farms in Wiltshire. It does not need a demonstration from Whitehall. They have done it through the local people and the consequence is that as the local farmers see the tests for themselves they carry far more conviction to them than is ever the case when listening to the theses of a Whitehall expert.
  Much the same thing is happening in regard to another matter. We wanted tests to be made as to what breed of sheep is best suited for grazing on the Wiltshire Downs. It does not cost much. A small grant to the county council and the test is carried out in co-operation with the farmers and produces results which are more convincing to the farmers than would be the case if it was carried out from Whitehall. All these tests are carried out at a minimum cost. What sense is there in pouring out £5,000,000 of public money to do what is so much better done by local arrangements. All this costly machinery, and the upheaval which must follow, will not correct what is wrong. Really it is difficult to find an explanation. What is behind it? Is it political tactics? Cannot we find enough ground of common agreement to get a Measure which everybody will accept, dealing with smallholdings, allotments and reclamation of land, on lines which have hitherto proved successful?
  Mr. ALPASS: This Measure.
  Mr. HURD: Is this the time for the Government to bring in such a Measure? How does the Government know that it is going to be alive next week? This Government is living from day to day; it is gasping for breath. It has to go to
  304
  the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to know whether it may live another week. Are these the circumstances, is this the atmosphere, in which we can hope to produce a Measure which is going to be of much benefit to agriculture? Certainly not a highly contentious Measure. If the Minister of Agriculture succeeds in getting this Measure on to the Statute Book—he will not—the finances are so colossal that any Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer considering the present financial crisis would have to say "Well, at least this expenditure has to go; it is non-productive to a large extent and it is waste." It is a deplorable thing, when there is so much ground of common agreement when we could get a Measure which would be of some benefit to agriculture, that we should be wasting our time on a Measure like this which will not succeed and which will only bring dismay to agriculture.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Having inflicted a fairly long speech on the House yesterday I ought to apologise for speaking again to-day, but this is a Measure, I say at once, after my own heart. I have taken an interest in agriculture and agricultural reform ever since I entered public life, and I was looking forward to someone who would bring in a Bill of this kind. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has had the boldness, courage and enterprise, to introduce it, and, as far as I am concerned and my Friend's also, I will give him whole-hearted support in any measures he takes for the purpose of carrying it through. I hope he will take them. That is important. It is no use bringing in a big Bill and getting a satisfactory Second Reading and not to take the necessary steps to put it through Parliament on to the Statute Book and, afterwards, the necessary steps to see that it is applied. I feel confident, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best. I know that he is as enthusiastic about it as anyone. If the Government are in a state of bad health, gasping for breath, all I can say is that they could not have a better cylinder of oxygen than a Bill of this kind, which will revive and stimulate and, I hope, really cure them.
  The reception which has been accorded to this Measure ought to have an effect

  305
  upon the whole of the Members of the Treasury Beech. It shows that when a Minister takes his courage in both bands and really grapples with a problem that he gets support behind him and from this quarter of the House and from the country, because there is a general sense that something is being done. There is a saying about hitting at the post in order that the parapet should hear. I am hitting the post here in order that the whole of the parapet there should hear. I had hoped that when something really was being attempted for agriculture, that whatever criticisms there may be—and naturally there would be some—it would be accepted in all parts of the House as an honest attempt to make some contribution towards the solution of what I conceive to be the most important aspect of our economic problem; the restoration of the equilibrium between the cultivation of the soil and the rest of industry.
  I have been profoundly disappointed by some of the speeches delivered by hon. Members above the Gangway. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) started pretty well, but he could not keep himself in hand very long. At first I thought that he was going to bless the proposals, and he did; but he suddenly remembered that after all he was a Conservative and that that was not the sort of thing which was expected from him. He talked about the smallholders and allotment holders in Wiltshire and then remembered that there were also landlords in Wiltshire; and the end of his speech was rather an appeal to them. The hon. Member talked about taking away the initiative from the county councils. You cannot take away a thing which does not exist. I have been for 42 years a member of a county council and I know something about county councils, and their record in regard to smallholdings. Their record is not a creditable one. There are a few counties which have done well. I think Somerset is a good example and Devonshire another.
  Mr. HURD: And so is Wiltshire.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman apparently guarantees that. But there are not many with a creditable record. Where the record is good the explanation is generally that there is
  306
  some one man, some enlightened person there who takes the thing in hand. know that there is in Somersetshire, for instance, and in the East of England there is something of the same sort. If you had the county councils of England and Wales following the example of two or three counties which I could name in England and one in Wales, you would have at the present moment three or four times as many smallholdings at there are. The vast majority of the county councils are not moving. There is a distrust, a dislike of smallholdings, and there is no use in talking as if the facts were otherwise. I think the Minister of Agriculture is taking absolutely the right course in indulging in what used to be called direct action. All this talk about Whitehall dictation and the clerks of Whitehall is of no use. Of course, the county councils will be consulted about local conditions. You will utilise their knowledge, their experience, and their organisation, but you will also push them along, drive them along, and, more than that, there will be the inducement of the millions to attract them. I think that that is the right
  course.
  I was a member of the Ministry that started the first real experiment in smallholdings 22 years ago. I forget the exact number, bat I believe there were 20,000 holdings established under that Act. I was also head of a Government which started another experiment when a little over 20,000 smallholdings were started. But since then the number of smallholdings has gone down, even if one includes figures representing what has been done by the county council. The figures have gone down, down, down. There are the parishes where the population is gradually disappearing, because whenever a smallholder dies there is no one to take his place and his holding is added to the nearest farm. A Presbyterian Minister the other day told me that he went to a church in the hills to which he had not been for 20 or 30 years. He was surprised to find very few people there, whereas on his former visits the church was usually fairly crowded. He said to me, "There is no population. As each farmer dies nobody is there to be put in his place and his holding is added on to the rest." It is no use talking of leaving the initiative, under these conditions, to the county council, Action

  307
  must be taken in this House and by the Government as the only means of restoring the equilibrium in the country.
  That is the problem. You cannot get this fact too often into the minds of the public. The general public do not know what is going on in the countryside. Over 90 per cent, of the population are not on the land, and of those more than half live in villages which have become towns, like the Rhondda. Valley and similar places. A very small percentage of the people in this country really live in the countryside. There is the problem. Because they are ignorant of it people are rather suspicious. They think it is all a question of farms. It is not; it is a question of the life of the nation. There is no country on the earth to-day where you have such a small percentage of people on the land. In France 40 per cent. of the population are on the land. That is why France is so stable. You cannot knock her over by disaster. She has been invaded three or four times within a little over 100 years; she has been trampled upon by foreign armies time after time. Still 40 per cent. of her people are rooted in the soil. In Germany the percentage is over 30, although Germany is an industrial country. In Belgium, which is in many respects the most industrialised country in the world. they manage to keep 18 to 19 per cent. of the population on the soil. In this country you have only 7 per cent. That is a danger to the country. You are getting hot-headed. You are depending upon foreign markets. No amount of Protection will make up deficiencies if the foreign markets go, unless you have a large proportion of the people on the soil. We are running a great danger in allowing this state of things to continue without making a real national effort to put it right—a real national effort. I would rather have a Bill that may be full of possibilities of criticism, hut one making an honest effort than have nothing at all. That is why I rejoice that at any rate a real attempt is to be made to put that matter right.
  There is the point of view of security. The Minister of Agriculture was with me in the Government during the War. Anyone who sat in that Government and had reports coming to him that there were only six weeks' supply of food in the
  308
  country, and that submarines were sinking hundreds of thousands of tons of our shipping, realised that the problem of producing food in this country by our own people is a problem of national security, and that it is as important as the Army and the Navy and the Air Force. We are spending £100,000,000 on that branch of security. Then why should anyone come here and hold up his hands in horror when a few millions are to be put up for the purpose of remedying the greatest weakness we had in the War? Anyone who does that shows no sense of proportion—none.
  There is no doubt at all that the Bill will cost money. It would be a mistake for the Minister to say that for every penny piece he is to put into this enterprise he is to get back 5 per cent. and sinking fund. The fact must be faced that this enterprise is bound to cost something. Yesterday we discussed the development of Palestine. Everyone realises that when a country has been let down a lot of money must be put into it. It is like pile driving in the mud, before. you lay your foundations. The piles you drive you never see again. But you see the bridge. It is the same here. I have no doubt at all that if the Minister of Agriculture does this on a large scale—it is not worth doing unless done on a large scale—there is a great deal of money which the Treasury will not see again. Does the landlord see his money again when he spends it for the purpose of improving his farms? As a matter of fact, one of the complaints of the landlord is that he cannot get more than 2 per cent. upon the money which he spends on improvements. He puts in money for building houses, for repairing or building cottages, for the purposes of farm buildings or for drainage. He sinks capital. It does not pay 5 per cent. to himself. He will often not get 2 per cent. for it. If a landlord said, "I would rather put my money into the Funds and get. 5 per cent than have merely 2 per cent by improving the estate," what would happen? He would do very well for a few years; his income would look very much better; but gradually his property would depreciate and deteriorate, and he would hand over to his descendants something which would be of not half the value. I am not depreciating the landlord. He is spending his money as a patriot and be-

  309
  cause he has a sense of duty. I am talking of the good landlord. But more than that he is a good business man in doing it.
  If that is true of the landlord, is it not true of the community which, after all, is the great landlord of all the land in this country? Suppose that you put £100,000,000 in to restore agriculture, to recondition the land and to get better houses, something better than what the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) referred to. I am sorry that he had the experience he mentioned in Wales. I could take him to parts of England where things are just as bad. Take that sort of thing. If you improve your farm buildings so that you can get better cattle, cleaner milk from the marketing point of view—that is very important—a better water supply; if you spend all all the money on that sort of thing, very likely you will get 2½ per cent. for the Treasury. But you will get something infinitely more. After all, the State has more than one ledger, and the Treasury does not keep them all. The Ministry of Health has one. The Ministry of Labour has a ledger. Every Ministry has an account. Improvement of the health and the strength of the community, its security, the restoration of the countryside, would do something, I shall not say to restore but to improve the moral of the people. A people brought up in the countryside are much more dependable in the long run, whatever crisis a country goes through. I observe that there is not much cheering for that statement. Probably most of my hon. Friends have come from the towns.
  Let me say something further about cost. Reference has been made to the 1919 buildings. Any hon. Gentleman why criticises them forgets that his party were just as responsible as either the Minister of Agriculture or myself. As a matter of fact, this work was not done by my right hon. Friend in 1919, and there is no use in attacking him. On the contrary, as far as this expenditure upon settlement is concerned, it was either Lord Ernle or Lord Lee who was responsible. They were able and experienced men. I am sure that no one could have spent the money to better ad
  310
  vantage than one or other of those men. Why did it cost so much? Because building at that time cost two and a-half times as much as it costs to-day. Anybody who has any experience of building knows that building materials were very expensive at that time. But, suppose that in 1919, after having promised to put ex-service men on the land we has said: "We are very sorry, but the building costs are so high that you must wait for another 10 years until they come down." What would have been said by hon. Gentlemen on this side above the Gangway in that case? We had. to go on then in spite of the expense. I think it was the late Minister of Agriculture who said that the total amount was £18,000,000 or £19,000,000. Suppose that £9,000,000 were written off. But 25,000 people were settled on the land. Either those men would have been out of work, or they would have been keeping somebody else out of work during all that period, if they had not been settled on the land, and it would have cost £12,000,000 to maintain those people. Was it not far better to spend £9,000,000 on putting them on the land, where the vast majority of them have been very successful, than to spend £12,000,000 on maintaining them in enforced idleness?
  6.0 p.m.
  No, this scheme will cost the State money, and you probably will not get back more than 2½ per cent. of the money which you put into it, but if it costs £5,000,000 a year, that is on the assumption that you do it on a very large scale, It would only cost £5,000,000 a year if you spent £200,000,000 on reclamation, on reconditioning, on building, on equipment. That is all. But you have a debt of £7,000,000,000 for destruction. The French spent from £1,000,000,000 to £2,000,000,000 on repairing the devastation of the War. Cannot we spend £200,000,000 on our devastated area in the countryside without having it said that the Government which does so is profligate and is guilty of ruinous extravagance in restoring an industry which has been neglected and jet down for 50 or 60 years. I trust that the House of Commons will take a much more liberal view—in more senses of the term than one—of its duty in this respect.

  311
  I have been very careful to listen to a great part of this debate and I have read very carefully those speeches which I did not hear. There were one or two remarkable speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) which showed great courage and enlightenment. He wanted to know what was the alternative to this proposal. Are we to do nothing, while the population on the land is going down? It has gone down 100,000 within the last 10 years and it is still going down. Are we to do nothing, or if we are to do something, what is that something? The Government have put forward their proposals, which must be taken together—the marketing proposals and this scheme. They are two bold schemes and the Government have thrown this on the Floor of the House for criticism and suggestion. It is the thing which I have been begging them to do, and when they have done it, I am not going to turn back upon them. That is not because I do not think that, in some respects, I might have done it in other ways. Everybody thinks he could do better, but I will make my suggestions later on, and I hope that the Minister will consider them as being offered in a friendly spirit, rather to improve and strengthen the Bill than to destroy it.
  What is the alternative? To have a secure market. What does that mean? There are two phrases which I have noted in this debate. One was used by the hen. and gallant Member for Bye (Sir G. Courthope) who made as he always does on agriculture a very well-informed speech, and one with a good deal of which I certainly agree. He said that it was no use doing this sort of thing unless you had a secure market. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, I want to know what he means. He may mean something totally different from what I mean by that phrase, and I should like to know what it is. These things ought to be explained. The next phrase is that there must be a readjustment of prices. What does that mean? Does it mean raising prices? If it does, most people even if agriculture is restored, will still be consumers and not producers and they are entitled to know. There are two ways in which you can raise prices for the producer. I am not against that, but as I say there are two ways in which you
  312
  can do it, and we are entitled to know which of these two way's is suggested by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. They say that it can be done without raising the price to the consumer. think you can raise the price for the producer without raising it to the consumer but you can also do it by raising the price to the consumer and leaving the consumer and the producer to settle it between themselves as to who shall get the swag, and I know who would get most of it.
  I am for the first way, and I think the Government are on the right lines in saying that it can be done by Unproved marketing arrangements, but in my judgment it can only be done by improved marketing arrangements if they also do something in regard to transport. I think that somehow or other it will be necessary to get the railway and the road transport systems together, and rope them into the marketing organisation in order to see that the material carried to the farm and the produce carried from the farm are carried under conditions, with regard to rates and otherwise, which will, if anything, give a preference to the home producer. I say so without any hesitation. I think you can do all that in such a way that a reduced cost to the consumer will at the same time improve the position of the producer, but that really is not what is meant by hon. Members above the Gangway on this side. They have not said so here but they say in their own constituencies to the farmers that there are two ways by which they propose to do it. Both those ways would increase the cost of the commodity. One is the quota, plus a barley subsidy, and there, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition haw committed himself. The next is a tariff. The official Conservative party have not yet committed themselves to a tariff but individual members in the agricultural districts have.
  Let us examine these ways. What would a quota mean? I would like to see this matter gone into very carefully. I do not want anybody to imagine that it is not going to cost something. If you have a quota of 15 per cent. of British wheat in your bread, if you say to the miller "You must, put 15 per cent. of British wheat into every sack of flour"

  313
  —that is not quite how it, would work out but 1 am putting it roughly—if you say "There must be 15 per cent. of British wheat in all your millable stuff," he is at the mercy of the seller, and therefore the next step is that you must fix the price. Otherwise, he could ask any price he liked. Thus, that method must always be accompanied by a. provision for fixation of price. What would that mean? I have never heard a farmer put it at less than 55s. and I have never heard anybody who advocated it saying that we would get off without 45s. Fifty-five shillings would mean practically doubling the price of wheat at this moment. Even 45s. would be an increase of 55 per cent.—and who pays? The consumer. It is an increase of anything from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000 upon the burdens of those who have to purchase food for themselves and for their families.
  I want to point out that these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, whatever else they may do, are not proposing that no money shall be spent upon agriculture. They want to spend it by way of raising the cost of the product to the consumer. The beet subsidy this year is £5,000,000. If you had the quota you would have to add £7,000,000, making £12,000,000. I venture to say that if the right hon Gentleman puts this Bill into operation at the outside he will not lose £5,000,000 a year. The other project would, at any rate, put on £12,000,000 a year, but that is not enough. If you did it for wheat and beet between them you would only be dealing with 5 per cent. of the total output of the farms and gardens of the country. What is going to be done about the other 95 per cent—and remember that the producers of the other 95 per cent. are mostly purchasers or this stuff and they want it cheap for farming purposes. What are you going to do for those? Scotland would not be much concerned about wheat nor Wales, nor the West of England. They are more dependent upon oats and barley and upon meat, and other agricultural products. Is nothing to be done for 95 per cent. of the produce of this country while £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 a year is spent on assisting 5 per cent. of it? You could not do it. The moment you do the one thing you are bound to do the other. If you put on a 10 per cent. tariff or the equivalent in a subsidy, it means adding
  314
  £50,000,000 to the burdens of this country. But £50,000,000 to £60,000,000, distributed over the whole of the consumers of this country, is, according to hon. and right hon. Gentleman, a trifle, while £5,000,000 would ruin us. A great scientist has discovered that there is a mathematical mind behind the universe. I wonder what kind of mind there was behind the creation of hon. Gentlemen who put forward the theory, that £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 is nothing, but £5,000,000 is profligate expenditure.
  Let me put one other point. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken full powers to deal with reclamation and reconditioning, and I hope he will use them. I am very glad to find that, as I understand it, he has put no limit in the Bill. That does not mean, as someone here suggested, that the Minister can go on, without consulting the House, spending anything he likes. He has to put down his Estimate and tell the House what it is that he proposes to spend, but he need not bring in another Bill. That is the point, because, after all, these Bills take a very long time. He has had his chance now, and then another Minister will want his chance, and he will not get another opportunity. I know how these things work. I do not mean with this Government merely, but with any Government. Therefore, the Minister has to take his powers, and then he puts his Estimate down, but I am glad there is no limit except the Vote of this House and that he has got his power.
  They say, "What need is there? Is there such land?" I should not be surprised at a townsman talking like that, but when I heard lion. Members who really know the country talk in that sense, I was rather interested. The Minister of Agriculture has already reported that there are nearly 2,000,000 acres of water-logged land in this country, very largely so since the War, because of the neglected drainage, and that is practically all due to arterial drainage. It does not refer to the vastly greater tracts of land there are, or rather lots of land which in the aggregate amount to huge tracts, where the land is waterlogged because the local drains, the farm drains, the field drains, have not been attended to, because the landlord has not had the means, owing to taxation, to deal with them.

  315
  But apart from that altogether, there is no doubt at all that there is a very considerable proportion of land in this country which is uncultivated which in other countries would have been cultivated, either by afforestation or by reclamation, and a still larger quantity which is under-cultivated. I know it is said, "You are attacking the farmers." I am not attacking the farmers. I have known farmers all my life, and I come of a race of farmers. I am not going to attack the farmers, but farmers are just like other people in every vocation. They are neither worse nor very much better. In every vocation you get men of great excellence, you get other men who are quite good and do their work well, and they are the bulk and the average, but then you have a great number of people who do not; and an average means that you have got some people of supreme excellence and a number of people who are supremely indifferent. That is really what it means. Even in the House of Commons, if we started dividing ourselves—if anybody wants to know he had better consult the Whip of his party, and he will tell him! And we have 610 picked men, picked from among over 40,000,000 of people, and yet there are all sorts. Farmers are just the same, and to say that there is a considerable quantity of land in this country which is under-cultivated is not attacking the farmers as a community. There are some of the best farmers in the world here, and there are also some of the worst. That is so, but here is the fact that we must not overlook.
  Take two countries, and I have chosen two Free Trade countries for the purpose, so as to avoid the argument that it is due to Protection. Take Holland and Denmark. The quantity of cereals produced per acre in Holland and Denmark upon the land there is considerably higher than it is here. It runs from 20 up to 40 or 50 per cent. above what is produced here. Take the stock on the land, and the same thing applies. Why do I choose Free Trade countries for that purpose? In the first place, I do so because, if I chose the others, it would be said that it was Protection that enabled them to do fit, and secondly, because the Free Trade countries are the best. As a matter of fact, we are now beating Germany, a Protectionist
  316
  country, and we are beating France, a Protectionist country. The only two countries that are beating us in the productiveness of the soil, whether in cattle units, cereals, or potatoes, are too great Free Trade countries that have no factitious and artificial stimuli, but which have to depend upon their own intelligence for that very reason; and the productiveness is greater.
  If that can be done there, why cannot it be done here? The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to give me some figures for which I asked the other day as to what has happened with smallholdings. I had a good many returns myself, but he has given me some very striking figures. I asked him if he could tell me what has happened as a result of experiments in converting estates into smallholdings. He gave me one great estate where there was an increase in the population of workers of 121 per cent. as a result, and in another the number of workers has been quadrupled, and they are doing well. I ask any hon. Gentleman, on this side of the House or on that side, Does he know any cases where, as a result of the setting up of smallholdings, there has not been an increase in the number of people who have been working on the land? In every case that has been the result. That is really what you want to do, and I should have thought hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway, who have a traditional interest in agriculture, would have supported any Ministry that brought forward a really bold, strong Bill, with cash behind it—and you cannot do it without that; you cannot restore agriculture without the community being prepared to make some sacrifices. The right hon. Gentleman has recognised that, and I should have thought that we could all of us have done our best to help him make this a good farm Bill for the purpose of rebuilding the countryside.
  I do not know of any problem at this moment which is more vital to the life of this nation than the restoration of the countryside. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will proceed, and that he will get real, honest help from everybody. I agree with the hon. Lady who said that there must be provision to enable women to have their fair share in what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, because anybody who lives in the countryside knows per-

  317
  fectly well that the smallholding is a failure unless the woman takes her part in it, and I was very glad to listen to her powerful and very sensible and practical appeal upon those lines. But, above all, I would like to say this to the Minister: I should like to have seen this Bill on the Floor of the House, and fought out here, but whatever the Government decide, I say at once that I am concerned only about getting the Bill through, and I shall help. This Bill will depend not merely upon the machinery they put in. It may have first-class machinery and the ideas in it may be admirable, but the right hon. Gentleman must have a survey which will enable him to find where these lands are, and to deal with them ruthlessly. The interests of the community must come first when the life of the nation is at stake, and he must make it clear that he is not going to be satisfied merely by carrying a great Bill. He must afterwards administer it in a great spirit.
  Sir JOHN GILMOUR: The House has listened to a speech by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) which has covered a great deal of ground on which there may be common agreement, but at the same time appears to have dealt very little with the actual problems which are before us in this Bill. I think it was Mr. Joseph Chamberlain who on one occasion said that part of the democratic creed is that if a, scheme is truly absurd—and unless we are all in a dream this scheme is so—people can he made to understand its absurdity. I am one of those who, in dealing with a subject connected with agriculture, would desire that this House should face realities and that they should eschew mere speeches voicing the aspiration of many of us—and is it not a common aspiration to almost every one?—to have a part, a lot, and an interest in the cultivation of the soil. That is an aspiration which in the history of my own country has been demonstrated a thousand times, whether the men were originally born on the land or whether they were occupied in the great enterprises of the city, but let me come to discuss this Bill.
  I should like to rule out at once that part of the proposals which deals with allotments, and to say that, in so far as that part of the scheme is concerned, it will have the support of many of us upon
  318
  this side of the House. It may be that in Committee a variety of suggestions may be made as to how that part of the Measure can be dealt with, but of this I feel certain, that all of us are convinced, from our practical knowledge, that an increase of allotments is not only a desirable but a beneficial thing for the people of the country. At the same time, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that those who work these allotments are going to contribute very materially either to their own support in foodstuffs or to the general support of the community, but undoubtedly the more we can encourage the allotment system the better it will be for the people of our cities. If the right hon. Gentleman can do anything to help in bringing this about by linking it up with town planning and by assuring a greater fixity of tenure, he will be doing something of material assistance.
  I observed to-day that a conference took place at the Caxton Hall of the urban allotment authorities, and that the Prime Minister, speaking there, is reported to have said that a large section of our people, in whose blood and bone and heart there was a reminiscence of the soil, desired to get a part and a share in that soil. They are words with which in a great measure one does not disagree, but it is not so much a reminiscence of the soil that is required, as an active and a close knowledge of the soil and the conditions of it; they are essential for success. Therefore if, either upon allotments or smallholdings, these men and women are to have any measure of success, they must be carefully selected. We could do no greater disservice to the men of this country, whether they come from the agricultural community or from the unemployed, than to make them believe that this is going to be an easy solution of their troubles unless they have knowledge of the circumstances into which they go.
  I turn from that to deal with the suggestion of large farms run under Government control. This scheme will, in the long run, not only prove costly, but defeat its own purpose. I cannot believe for a moment that we have not had in this country enough examples of farms of great extent from which all the necessary lessons can be learned. It is the height of folly, to say the least of

  319
  it, that the Government should endeavour to enter into this arena. I observe with some interest that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking on this subject on the first day of our debate, hinted that, so far as my country—and his—is concerned, it would be extraordinarily difficult to carry out any policy of that kind. I hope not only that it will be extraordinarily difficult, but that the part of the scheme will be abandoned. I cannot believe that any of the examples that we have had of this kind of thing in this country is really of any practical value in teaching the agriculturist or the smallholder anything to his advantage. I know that there are some who have preached this policy and written on it in treatises, but. what has been the effect of dealing with some of these larger farms? I am not going to trouble the House with the failures and the figures of the failures; they are there for everyone to study and read.
  If the large farm is to be a success, it must, as one hon. Gentleman said today, be run upon mechanised lines. If it is to be run upon mechanised lines, that must mean the abolition of a great part of the fences, hedges and so on, on the existing land. It will mean the scrapping of many buildings which are used for useful purposes, and the sum total will be that you will have a large area which will be cultivated by mechanical traction, and will cause infinitely less employment than exists at the present time. In the case of my own property, amounting only to between 4,000 and 5,000 acres, if anybody said to me that I should turn that into a large farm and abolish my fences, my service roads and all the things that exist today, I should say that it was the height of folly. The property faces south and has a good outlook and good soil, yet there are such variations in the soil and climate, that it is quite impossible to try the same method of culture or of reaping upon the lower part as on the higher part of the property. There is something like 10 days' difference in the cropping between the lower and the higher portions of that property. Unless you can, as in the great prairies of Canada, get great tracts of country which are very similar in their conditions and circumstances, that policy will fail, and is hound to fail. Any
  320
  policy of that kind must, I am certain on reflection, be found to be wasteful and useless for the purposes for which it was devised.
  With regard to reclamation, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said—I think truly—that when you go up and down the countryside, you see a great deal of land which would be the better for draining, and a good deal which would be the better for liming, but if you came to me aid said that we should spend, under the methods of this Bill, great sums of money for reclaiming derelict land that is not even today being cultivated at all, I should say that, good and proper as is a policy of reclamation, right and proper as it is to encourage and foster and, if necessary, ultimately to enforce the proper draining and cultivation of the soil, it would be folly to make the country believe that by spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, and even millions, you will benefit agriculture.
  We have some interesting experiments in my country, to which the Under-Secretary referred. A policy of exploring this problem by the reclamation of heathlands has been started, and through the generosity of a Scotsman who has made his living in Canada, we are trying out a scheme. Only the other day I visited part of that scheme. While it is quite true that you can improve heath-land, and at great expenditure grow a crop upon that land, I am convinced that it is so costly an experiment that it is not likely to succeed upon any large scale. When I visited the scheme in the last month or two, all the other crops on the island had been gathered in, and the only crop that was standing out was the crop upon that experimental farm. Perhaps this does not close the door to further experiment, but at least it should make us pause when we are proposing to vote large sums of money for this kind of thing.
  I had brought to my attention the other day a case of what may be described as a considerable scheme of reclamation at Terrington St. Clements, in Norfolk. There may he some explanation of what has happened there. Something like 500 acres of land were reclaimed from the Wash, partly by German prisoners during the War, and subsequently, I understand, by a company expert in reclamation work. It was then

  321
  worked, I understand, under some Government Department. The actual fact is that comparatively recently this land thus reclaimed was so much neglected by the Crown that this year the thistles were so high that the cattle could not really make their way through, and the county council of the district had to enforce an order for the removal of the weed. If that be true—and I have no doubt that it is a correct report—does it not make one realise that, with the very best intentions, a Government Department is totally unsuited to carry out large farming schemes or a policy of this kind?
  I have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he does not intend this system to be worked from Whitehall. Under what kind of system does he propose to work it? Where is he going to get his servants and expert people? Under whose control will it be? Will those in control not be answerable, and must they not, in fact, always be answerable to his Department? Must they not always be controlled by the officials who may happen to deal with the particular district in which the farms are situated? I can see no possible reason to think that the condition of affairs will be better than in other circumstances.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE
  (Dr. Addison): The Electricity Commissioners and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which were set up by public authority, are not interfered with by officials in Whitehall.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The right hon. Gentleman proposes, I suppose, to set up agricultural commissioners drawn from those who have failed to make a success in the industry. What inducement can he, or anyone with the best intentions, hold out to any man who is making a success of farming on his own, to come into Government employment and to run in a team to deal with a problem of this kind? I can only view it with a serious disturbance of mind, because I do not believe for a moment that he will get those individuals to carry out that work.
  I notice that when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with demonstration farms, the order of apportionment for their care is, the local authorities, the agricultural colleges and the universities. I know less about the
  322
  conditions that obtain in England than about those in Scotland, but I cannot conceive any method of apportionment and of management which is less likely to be successful than that order, and I should have assumed that, in the first instance, any demonstration farm which was set up would be apportioned mainly to the agricultural colleges. In listening to some of the speeches in the debate, one might be led to assume that little has been done in this country in the way of demonstration farms or of experimental stations. That, indeed, is very far from being the case. The main difficulty to-day is in interpreting the results of their work by the scientific men in the colleges, and putting it in language understandable by, and bringing it sufficiently closely down to, those who are actually doing the work in the fields. The proposal of the Government to set up a larger number of demonstration farms may be in itself a good thing, but I am a little afraid that unless great care is taken to make use of the existing demonstration farms, and to increase and extend their work, we shall be doing a disservice rather than a service to this problem. In our own country, fortunately, we have been able in the last few years to apportion the study of particular subjects to particular parts and to particular institutions, and at the same time to link up the results of their work and to co-ordinate their inquiries.
  Besides dealing with large farms and research stations, the 13111 also provides smallholdings. Those of us who have been brought into close contact with the machinery of smallholdings know very well, indeed, the difficulties which face anyone dealing with it. I am certain that. I am speaking not only for myself, but for those who belong to my party when I say that we are in favour of a policy of steady progress in establishing smallholdings, but this must be done under circumstances which will give a fair opportunity to the smallholders to make a living. When I had the responsibility for this matter in Scotland, I was satisfied that further inquiry ought to be made into this question of the machinery, and I established an inquiry which I trust those interested in smallholdings in Scotland will follow with some care. I would like to quote the opinion of one of the members of that inquiry, Mr. Joseph Duncan. I know there is a

  323
  certain dislike of Mr. Duncan's views upon some of these subjects among ardent supporters of smallholdings, but, after all, Mr. Duncan is the accredited representative of the farm servants of Scotland and has studied this question with the greatest care. Mr. Duncan, writing in "Forward"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I always read that paper with interesit—put his views shortly in the following words:
  "If the Ministers who are supporting this Bill know of districts where such smallholdings can find a market which will enable unemployed men to earn a living, by all means let us spend some money to set these men up in holdings. The question is not a political one, it is a plain matter of business. Find the markets where the men on the smallholdings can sell their produce prices at which they can make a living and there ought not to he any great difficulty in finding land."
  The problem is to find the markets which will give a decent living to the-se people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs showed when speaking on this matter that he had not re-ad the policy which our party placed before the country with so much care as some of us have devoted to his yellow book. I would emphasise one or two facts about smallholdings in Scotland. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) spoke eloquently in favour of smallholdings. In that area, and in some others in the Lowlands of Scotland, we have had some very satisfactory smallholdings, and it is perfectly true that in some cases there has been an increase in the number of individuals on the land and in the amount of stock which is on those holdings. But the Nairne Committee which inquired into that problem, while admitting all those things, went on to say that the increase was secured by a change of production, and that in so far as the creation of settlements led to a change in the direction of production an economic increase might be expected. But, they added:
  "On the whole, however, the settlements have not led to any great change in the direction of production."
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): Is it not the case that the appendix to that report gave instances of a considerable increase in production?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: In the south of Scotland, if you pick out certain holdings, undoubtedly you can show an increase; but taking things as a whole J. think the words I have read are not incorrect. Let me return to that part of the country which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth represents. There is a great fruit-growing industry round the town of Blairgowrie. Everybody knows that in past years it has attracted many men and women, and has developed a great and attractive and very useful industry. I think one of the most successful raspberries grow there; it is called after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I grow it in my own garden.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What about the Baldwin currant?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The point is that one has seen advertisements in the papers inviting the public to go into those very holdings and pick the raspberries because they could not be disposed of. Why? Because of the import of cheap pulp into this country. Those unrestricted imports disturbed and eventually killed the market. If we turn to the Vale of Evesham in Worcestershire, what do we find? In the Vale of Evesham there are smallholdings which produce fruits and other things which we all like and which are better if they can be obtained fresh from this country, and I believe there are very effective marketing arrangements there; but people there have failed because of the intensive, unfair and unreasonable dumping of produce from other countries. This is a problem which, in the view of men like Mr. Duncan, and of many who speak in this side of the House, can he solved only if the people who are put on the land are given a reasonable hope of finding a market for their goods.
  We have a difference of view. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends speak much of improved marketing methods and with that I am in hearty agreement. The right hon. Gentleman said it would he a good thing if we read the report of the Empire Marketing Board, or of some Empire committee, upon the import of Chinese eggs into this country. He gave formidable figures as to those imports. It is clear that, putting Empire and home production together, we produce only something like

  325
  53 per cent. and that the rest come in from foreign countries. But what hope can there be in putting a man on a smallholding and encouraging him to produce eggs and to rear hens if all that he produces is to be subject to this fierce competition from produce from abroad? How can he hope to make a return upon his property? It would be lunacy to leave him open to such competition as we get in the case of eggs from China.
  It is so easy to make an eloquent speech in this House about the desirability of increasing egg production in this country, but everybody knows that the production of eggs and poultry is one of the most highly scientific things to which a man can put his hand. If the hens are on an open field a certain production of eggs is obtained, and one may avoid some of the difficulties of disease which come in the moment you enter upon more intensive production. If semi-intensive production is tried, a man is bound to bring the hens into closer confines and it is necessary for him to be much more careful in his methods. If he goes on from semi-intensive production to highly intensive production, the risk of loss becomes infinitely greater. I emphasise this because I trust the House will not run away with the idea that a six months' training, or even a year's training, will fit a man to make a success at this work; and it is a delusion to suppose that we can benefit greatly our unemployed men by putting them to this work. It is only by knowledge, by intensive work and by close attention that they do any good at it.
  Much has been said to-day by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs about family farming, but I wish the House to realise what it means. Mr. Joseph Duncan, in writing upon another matter, said that if he were advising a boy what kind of father to select he would advise him, in the first instance, to have a large farmer, and that if he were asked about a family farm he should put it low upon the list, and for this reason. A family farm, if it is to be truly a family farm, must be one worked by the man, his wife and his family; and he observed also that in Canada, in Denmark and in any of the Free Trade countries to which the right hon. Gentleman has so freely referred, the family farm necessitates a large amount of boy labour. If
  326
  that be so, it follows that there must be a large measure of exemption in respect of attendance at school. In Canada, where the school leaving age is 16, I think, the number of exemptions is very large. If the family farm is to be a success, there must be exemptions under the education system; if there are not to be, then undoubtedly the man has been deluded. If he is deprived of that labour, his only alternative is to go into the open market for other workers.
  I think that our party are fully justified in the action which they propose to take to-night in going into the Lobby against the Bill. It is a Bill, no doubt, which is full of good intentions and f was, indeed, interested to observe the bouquet which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs threw to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. If the millions, which my right hon. Friend believes are so readily to be found in these days, are to be the bait to solve this problem, why stop here? It is the same kind of thing that happened some time ago, and it was, I understood, the reason why the two right hon. Gentlemen fell apart. As far as we are concerned, we shall vote against this Bill with the feeling and with the knowledge that it is deluding those who are unemployed, that it is doing nothing effective and essential for agriculture, and that it is sufficient to draw the attention of the public to it to condemn it.
  7.0. p.m.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Attlee): If the attitude of mind expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollock (Sir J. Gilmour) is really characteristic of the party to which he belongs, then agriculture has not very much for which to hope from that party. There was an underlying current through many of the speeches made on that side of the House that nothing was any good for agriculture unless you dealt with the question of price. When anyone suggested marketing, they suggested going further than marketing and said that you must deal with foreign imports. We have lately had two Members returned to this House, one of whom was disowned by the Conservative party because he wanted to tax foreign food, and another returned in all the odour of sanctity because he

  327
  declared himself as unwilling to tax food. It is a bad look-out for agriculture from the aspect of the views put forward on the other side of the House, if price is the one thing that is going to do any good for agriculture, and if they are precluded—at any rate, when it comes to fighting elections—from advocating this step. That was the underlying note to many of these speeches, and the difficulty about replying is that so many of the speeches from the other side of the House were about something which is not in the Bill, and, in the nature of things, could not be.
  This Bill deals with the utilisation of agricultural land; it does not profess to be in itself a complete agricultural policy. I want the House to consider this Bill in the light of the general declaration of policy which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the last Session, and in view of the Measures which have been already introduced or suggested with regard to the agricultural situation generally. It is easy to take this Bill and say, "What is the good of putting people on the land when you are not dealing with any of the other matters for agriculture?" Our policy is to get people on the land, and also to get conditions in agriculture which will allow those people to get a living on the land. When one has dealt with those other proposals, one has swept away a great deal of the objections which have been raised to this Bill, except one other form of objection only resorted to when people are gravelled in finding real objections. It is a very easy thing to do—and I back myself to do it with regard to any undertaking in the world unless that undertaking's actual facts were brought up against me—and it is to assume that every kind of undertaking will be run in the worst and most boneless way, that the worst land will be taken, that the worst and most inexperienced people you can get will be put on it, and that there will be muddle in the worst possible way. You can take any institution you like from running a fried-fish shop to running the British Empire and, by examining the constitution of either of those two institutions and assuming that they were run by the worst possible people in the worst possible way, show
  328
  that neither of them would work. As a matter of fact, both those great institutions do work.
  This Bill will be valuable just in so far as it is worked in a real spirit to help the land. We do not want to get into any violent party quarrels over the principle of this Bill. Tins Bill contains proposals which are supported by Members in every part of the House. If we could get this Bill on the Statute Book, then there is a great opportunity for Members with varying points of view to assist in the work of the reconstruction of agriculture. I say that because I notice what a great variety of objections was taken. One Member said that you cannot do very much with smallholdings. Another Member of the same party was almost lyrical in his enthusiasm for smallholdings. Almost everyone was agreed with regard to allotments. One Member of the same party said that there is no land that requires reconditioning. Another Member of the same party pointed oat that we all knew a great many pieces of land which needed reconditioning. What struck me in listening to the various agricultural experts on the benches opposite was what I, in company with one of them, noticed so often in India, that there were a great many different opinions because people came from different parts of the country. I noticed over and over again that there was a speech made by someone from one part of the country which was in direct contradiction with that of someone from another part of the country. That is so in regard to a great industry like agriculture, and it explains why there are various methods in this Bill. It is quite obvious that, in a country where you do not have anything on the scale of large-scale farming, you are not going to introduce large-scale farming. It is quite obvious that, if you are in a country suited only for large-scale farming. you are not going to rush ahead with a mass of smallholdings. That does not mean you must confine yourself to one method or another; the variety of conditions in these islands is enough to make provision for both.
  A number of Members criticised the proposals in regard to large-scale farming. The Minister of Agriculture in the last Government and the ex-Secretary of

  329
  State for Scotland were critical, and so were several other ex-Ministers. That shows that opinion does change in the Conservative party, for in 1918 there were two ex-Conservative Ministers of Agriculture who thought that experiments of this nature in large-scale farming would be extremely useful. It may be that the views then held by Lord Selborne and Lord Ernie are out-of-date, though they have been confirmed since by high authority. One must have a sense of scale in judging this Bill. One would have thought, from certain of the speeches, that the rather modest proposal for making certain experiments in large-scale farming was a rush headlong into wholesale mechanisation of the country, and the general imitation of prairie methods. After all, this is only an experiment on a limited scale, and an experiment recommended to us by some of the best authorities on agriculture in this country. The right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) raised a point which I would like to answer. He had a difference as regards figures with the. right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture; it was only a small point with regard to the amount of failures in smallholdings. The answer to the difference between the figures, which was challenged by the right hon. Member, was that my right hon. Friend was giving the proportion of failures of men among the total number of men placed on the land while the right hon. Gentlemen opposite gave the proportion of failures in relation to the number of holdings, and that those figures, which were queried and which I had looked un, were taken from a report made under the aegis of the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
  Taking this Bill from the broad point of view, let us try to see what we are endeavouring to do. This is not an attempt at starting some small detached experiment with a view either to deal solely with unemployment or to deal solely with a particular problem, such as smallholdings. This is part of the deliberate policy of this Government with regard to the orderly development of the economic life of this country. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was perfectly right when he stressed the need for a greater balance in our economic life. Anyone who looks at the position of the world
  330
  to-day will see that this country needs a greater home production, it needs a greater stability, and we must have a far steadier position for the workers on the land. Some people seem to consider that the people who are on the land now are the only people who are interested in the land. That is an entire mistake. There are a very large number of townsmen who have left the land within the last few years. There is a very big body of town workers brought up in the country who have never lost their love for the land. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) was right when he corrected the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds in the erroneous idea that there were no people who were living in urban surroundings who were capable of producing commodities on the land under the right conditions. There are a large number of people with the natural instincts of the grower who, given the chance, would make good. That is not to say in the least that we are going to take someone who has lived all his life in a town, and put him on unoccupied land and expect him to make good.
  Mr. HURD: I did not correct the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness), because he did not say that.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I was present and heard those speeches, and my impression was that the case of the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was that you could not find people in the town to go on the land. That was the impression he gave me.
  Mr. HURD: Not in large numbers.
  Mr. ATTLEE: Yes, that is the impression he gave. I am very glad the hon. Member for Devizes corrected him.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The whole trend of my argument was that you would get people glad to take advantage of these opportunities, but that is was, to a large extent, a waste of money because they would not make good without the necessary experience.
  Mr. ATTLEE: The argument was that they were not people who would make good. We believe there are a large number of people who would make good. It is one of those schemes which gives an opportunity for a man to start in a small way. A man who finds himself in possession of an allotment may be able to progress and ultimately go on

  331
  to a smallholding and achieve larger things. I remember a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds in which he indicated exactly the same progress with regard to smallholdings, but you have to get the right kind of men on the land. This country cannot afford to leave the land neglected, and the object of this Bill is to see that the land is properly utilised.
  We have taken powers under this Bill, in cases where the land has been neglected, to see that arrangements are made for its proper cultivation. I think that is a very vital principle. I know there are people who still believe that every person has a right to do what he likes with his own, but in regard to the land question we do not believe that that principle should be followed in cases in which it is likely to result in harm being done to the community. We assert with regard to agriculture what we assert with regard to other industries, namely, that the assets of the community should be properly used. Consequently, we are taking powers in this Bill to see that the land is properly used, and, where land has been allowed to go to waste, to see that it is properly cultivated. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) alluded to the fact that this Bill gave power to take over the land, and spoke about free gifts. I think there has been a good deal too much in this country of late years in the way of making free gifts without getting anything for the community in return, and this applies, not only to agriculture, but to other interest. If the nation provides money for these purposes, we should insist upon getting something for it. I will give an example. I would like to see the community receiving something in return for de-rating, which was a free gift proposed by hon. Members opposite. It was a dole to industry. In every kind of business or industry, it is necessary to see that the community gets full value in the shape of organisation and returns for the money spent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollock suggested that the Agricultural Commissioners will be drawn from among the failures in the industry, hut I would like to ask him if he considers that the mem-
  332
  bers of the Central Electricity Board are a collection of failures? We believe that this Board will be able to deal effectively with matters connected with large-scale farming. Another objection raised to the Measure is that it is contended that it will create a horde of officials.
  This is a question which will no doubt come up at election time. Why the managing of smallholdings and farming should necessitate the creation of a horde of officials I cannot make out. There is no reason why under this Bill we should have a horde of officials, but I should like to say at the same time that we do not believe in starving the organisation. I agree that there will have to be a considerable expenditure of money if agricultural work is to be pushed ahead, and there has been a good deal of slackening in agriculture which has got to be overtaken. We want to speed up the creation of smallholdings, but that does not mean that we propose at once to take all kinds of persons who are totally unqualified to go on the land, and put them down somewhere. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred to the gentle progress which had been made in smallholdings. I find that, under the policy of the last, Government 674 smallholdings were established in four years. That is a form of gradualness which may be inevitable, but I hope it is not. There is a great deal of difference between that and a mad rush to put people on the land. We have no intention of putting incompetent people on the land, and we believe that the proposals in this Bill can be carried out with due consideration to economic circumstances with every possibility of success.
  It is perfectly obvious that any scheme for getting people back to the land necessitates a very careful selection. That applies to any scheme, and you can turn down any scheme if you assume that ordinary people are not qualified to work it. This Bill provides for the carrying out of a considered policy for agriculture. It is a policy providing for a definite organisation of the economic life of the agricultural community. A suggestion has been made, in regard to allotments, that land should he kept for that purpose, and that our activities should he linked up with town-planning arrangements. I agree that our scheme

  333
  should work parallel with the efforts of local authorities, but, over and above that, it is necessary that our schemes should be linked up with national planning arrangements. We want to have a definite conception of the future economic life of this community, and this Bill, and others which will be introduced later will form part of a greater whole, part of a considered policy for agriculture.
  I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and that all parties in the House will then do their best to pass it quickly and bring it into effect.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 216.

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES.

  [7.26 p.m.

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Knight, Holford

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Motton)

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

  Freeman, Peter

  Lang, Gordon

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Alpase, J. H.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Lathan, G.

  Ammon, Charles George

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Angell, Norman

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Arnott, John

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

  Lawson, John James

  Ayles, Walter

  Gill, T. H.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Gillett, George M.

  Leach, W.

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Barr, James

  Gould, F.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Batey, Joseph

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Gray, Milner

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Midalesbro' W.)

  Longden, F,

  Benson, G.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Lunn, William

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Blindell, James

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

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

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  McElwee, A.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Harbord, A.

  McKinlay, A.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hardie, George D.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Bromfield, William

  Harris, Percy A.

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Bromley, J.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Brooke, W.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  MacNeill-Weir. L.

  Brothers, M.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Mansfield, W.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  March, S.

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Markham, S. F.

  Buchanan, G.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Marley, J.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Marshall, Fred

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

  Herriotts, J.

  Mathers, George

  Calne, Derwent Hall-

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Matters, L. W.

  Cameron, A. G

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Messer, Fred

  Cape, Thomas

  Hoffman, p. C.

  Milner, Major J.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Hollins, A.

  Morgan, Or. H, G.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Morley, Ralph

  Chater, Daniel

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Morris-Jones, Dr J. H. (Denbigh)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield))

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Mort, D. L.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Isaacs, George

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Compton, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Cowan, D. M

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Muff, G.

  Daggar, George

  Johnston, Thomas

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Dallas, George

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Dalton, Hugh

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

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

  Naylor, T. E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

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

  Day, Harry

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Noel Baker, P. J,

  Denman. Hon. R. D.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

  Dukes, C.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Duncan, Charles

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Kedward, R. M (Kent, Ashford)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Edge, Sir William

  Kelly, W. T.

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Palin, John Henry

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Holt. Joseph M

  Palmer, E. T.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Kinley, J.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Egan, W. H.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Perry, S. F.

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Sherwood, G H.

  Tout, W. J.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Shield, George William

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Turner, B.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Shinwell, E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Potts, John S.

  Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Price, M. p.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Walker, J.

  Pybus, Percy John

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Sinkinson, George

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Watkins, F. C.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Richards, R.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  West, F. R.

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Ritson, J.

  Snell, Harry

  White, H. G.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Rowson, Guy

  Sorensen, R.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Stephen, Campbell

  Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

  Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Strauss, G. B.

  Wilson, n. J. (Jarrow)

  Sandham, E.

  Sullivan, J.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wise, E. F.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Wood. Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Scurr, John

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Sexton, James

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

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Toole, Joseph

  Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Albery, Irving James

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopoid C, M.S.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Balniel, Lord

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Beamish, Rear-admiral T. P. H.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

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

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Betterton, Sir Henry B.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Birchall, Major sir John Dearman

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lamb. Sir J. O.

  Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

  Bracken, B.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Faile, Sir Bertram G.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Fermoy, Lord

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Lockwood, Captain J, H.

  Butler, R. A.

  Ford. Sir P. J.

  Long, Major Hon. Eric

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Campbell, E. T-

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Meller, R. J.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatnam)

  Chadwick, Capt, Sir Robert Burton

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Chamberlain Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birn., W.)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Christle J. A.

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. H. (Ayr)

  Churchill Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Morrison, W. S (Glos, Cirencester)

  Cockerill, Brig,-General Sir George

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Colville Major D. J.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hanbury, C.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  336

  337

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Todd, Capt, A. J.

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Train, J.

  Oman, sir Charles William C.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Savery, S. S.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Simms, Major-General J.

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Penny, Sir George

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Smithers, Waldron

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Somerset, Thomas

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Williams. Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Remer, John R.

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Withers, Sir John James

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Thomson, Sir F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Salmon, Major I.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Sir B. Eyres Monsell and Major Sir George Hennessy.

  Bill read a Second time.

  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Comittee

  Division No. 9.]

  AYES.

  [7.38 p.m.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

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

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Balniel, Loru

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Morrison, W. S, (Glos., Cirencester)

  Berry, Sir George

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Boyce, H. L.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Bracken, B.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

  Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hanbury, C.

  O'Connor, T. J.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Butler, R. A.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Penny, Sir George

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

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

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Remer, John R.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

  Reynolds, Col. Sir James

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Law, Sir Alfred (Derby. High Peak)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Savery, S. S.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Skelton, A. N.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

  Lockwood, Captain J. H.

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Meller, R. J.

  Stanley, Ma). Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  of the Whole House."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]
  The House divided: A yes,169; Noes, 275.

  Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Thomson, Sir F.

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Titchifield, Major the Marquess of

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Todd, Capt. A. J.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Train, J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Captain Wallace and Sir Victor

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Withers, Sir John James

  Warrender.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Womersley, W. J.

  NOES

  Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Gillett, George M.

  Macdonald, sir M. (Inverness)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Or. Christopher

  Glassey, A. E.

  McElwee, A.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Gossling, A. G.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  Gould, F.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Alpass, J. H.

  Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Angell, Norman

  Gray, Milner

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Arnott, John

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Mansfield, w.

  Ayles, Walter

  Groves, Thomas E.

  March, S.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Markham, S. F.

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

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

  Marley, J.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hall Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Marshall, Fred

  Bellamy, Albert

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mathers, George

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Matters, L. w.

  Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Harbord, A.

  Messer, Fred

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Hardie George D.

  Milner, Major J.

  Benson, G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B,

  Bentham, Or. Ethel

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Morley, Ralph

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Haycock, A. W.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Blindell, James

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hayes, John Henry

  Mort, D. L.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Muff, G.

  Bromfield, William

  Herriotts, J.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Bromley, J.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Brooke, W.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Brothers, M.

  Hollman, P. C.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Noel-Buxton Baroness (Norfolk. N.)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Oldfieid, J. R.

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Buchanan, G.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Isaacs, George

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Palin, John Henry.

  Calne, Derwent Hall-

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Johnston, Thomas

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Perry, S. F.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Charleton, H. C,

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

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Chater, Daniel

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Clarke, J. S.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Potts, John S.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Price, M. p.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

  Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Compton, Joseph

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Cowan, D. M.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Ramsay, T. B, Wilson

  Daggar, George

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Dallas, George

  Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kinley, J.

  Richards, R.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lang, Gordon

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dukes, C.

  Lathan, G.

  Ritson, J.

  Duncan, Charles

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Rosbotham, D. S T.

  Edge, Sir William

  Lawrence, Susan

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lawson, John James

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Leach, W.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Egan, W. H.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

  Sandham, E.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lindley, Fred W.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Freeman, Peter

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Scurr, John

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Sexton, James

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

  Longden, F,

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anylesea)

  Lunn, William

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Shield, George William

  Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

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

  Shiels, Or. Drummond

  Gill, T. H.

  Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  340

  341

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Sutton, J. E.

  West, F. R.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  White, H. G.

  Sinkinson, George

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

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Bircn., Ladywood)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Thurtie, Ernest

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Tout, W. J.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistono)

  Turner, B.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Viant, S. P.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Snell, Harry

  Walkden, A. G.

  Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Walker, J.

  Wise, E. F

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Wallace, H. W

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Sorensen, R.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Watkins, F. C.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Strauss, G. R.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.

  Sullivan, J.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) [MONEY].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to promote the better utilisation of agricultural land in Great Britain and the settlement of unemployed persons thereon, to amend the Law relating to smallholdings and allotments, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain or the growing produce thereof of—

(i) such sums as may be required for the purpose of financing the operations of the Agricultural Land Corporation, to be established under the said Act, not exceeding in the aggregate one million pounds;

(ii) such sums as may ho required by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as 'the Minister ") for the purchase of land acquired by him under the provisions of the said Act relating to the acquisition and holding of land for the use as demonstration farms, and to the acquisition of land for purposes of reconditioning, and for such other expenses under the said provisions as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure not exceeding, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, five million pounds;

(iii) such sums Os may be required by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department') for the purchase of land acquired by them under the provisions mentioned in tile last foregoing paragraph, and for such other expenses
342
under those provisions as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Department to be capital expenditure not exceeding, unless and until Parliament otherwise determines, seven hundred thousand pounds;

(iv) such sums as may be required by the Minister for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of smallholdings under the said Act, and for such other expenses for the provision of smallholdings under the said Act as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure;

(v) such sums as may be required by the Department for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of holdings for unemployed persons under the said Act, and for such other expenses in connection with such provision as may he agreed by the Treasury and the Department to be capital expenditure;

(b) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding twenty years, for the purpose of providing money for the sums so authorised to be issued or the repayment thereof to the Consolidated Fund;

(c) to provide for the payment of any such terminable annuities, in so far as payment thereof is not directed by the Treasury to be defrayed out of the Smallholdings and Allotments Account or the Agricultural (Scotland) Fund, as the case may be, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries or for the service of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as the ease may be, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof;

(d) to authorise the payment, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(1) of any deficiency in the Smallholdings and Allotments Account or in the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund arising by reason of any excess of expenditure directed by the said Act to be defrayed out of that account or fund over the

343
amount of the sums directed by the said Act to be paid into that account or fund; and

(2) of any expenses incurred by the Minister or by the Department, or by the Minister of Labour, in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under the said Act not herein-before provided for."—[King's Recommendation signified].

Dr. ADDISON: I do not think there is very much that need be said on this Motion, because the debate which has just concluded has traversed the same ground. The first part of the Motion deals with the £1,000,000 that is to be devoted to the purpose of the Agricultural Land Corporation and, when we link that with the money that we may he empowered to spend on reclamation and consider it in the light of the debate which has just concluded, the only consideration that arises in my mind is this, Why in the world did I not ask for more? The case that has been made against it is so sketchy and so unsupported by parallel evidence that I have come to the conclusion that I was too modest in my demands. Let us put down the first two items, £1,000,000 for the Agricultural Corporation and £5,000,000, if necessary, subject to the further sanction of Parliament, for land reclamation, £6,000,000 in all, compared for example with the expenditure on roads. We are spending all over the country on some of these magnificent new trunk roads much greater figures than these in the year, and I have not heard a single Member opposite raise any objection, as far as I recollect. There is not a road in the land that has ever paid 1 per cent. dividend. It is true they are possessed of great advantages. They serve the interests of the vicinity, but they do not pay a dividend. They are not, in themselves, except so far as they ease and facilitate transport, productive enterprises. The worst epithet that has been hurled at me from the other side is that I am only going to get 2½ per cent. That is the worst crime that is alleged against us in the Bill generally. In the first place, I shall have 2½ per cent. more than any road has ever paid.
Sir NEWTON MOORE: What do you get for road licences?
Dr. ADDISON: I should like to establish that parallel. What do you get here? You get land which is made fit for utilisation and the regular steady
344
production of food. The more you develop it the more people you employ. I am willing to accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's comparison. If we had spent under schemes of this kind, not-the sum asked for in this Bill but a quarter of the sum we have spent on our roads, we should have from one end of the country to the other productive, flourishing, self-supporting enterprises, and they do not require controlling by the police. It is true that the roads make no profit, but I think the whole of the debate has shown, apart entirely from the 2½ per cent., which I am accepting for the moment, that if this land is to be used you are going to get a great increase of home food production.
Let me refer, in justification of the expenditure here contemplated, to the statement of the late Secretary of State for Scotland. He was criticising the proposed expenditure on developing groups of specialised smallholders for the purpose of poultry farming on the ground that they would be producing so many more eggs than the market would absorb, and said that already the British egg producer was finding himself disadvantaged by dumped foreign eggs at a lower price. The fact is that this week the price the trade will give for good quality well graded best British eggs is 4d. per dozen more than they give for any other eggs. Does not that show that, if the British egg producer puts the right quality stuff on the market, he is not being driven out of the industry by dumped foreign eggs? As a matter of fact, our production of eggs during the past 12 months has greatly increased and the import of eggs has diminished. I have in my possession now details of a case where a very large undertaking was prepared to place a contract for national mark eggs of top grade, and they could not get the supplies available in sufficient quantities. There is no illustration more unfortunate for the Opposition case than the one chosen by the right hon. Gentleman.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not want unnecessarily to restrict the discussion, but it is hardly proper to reply to a speech given in the House on Second Reading in Committee. We are not cognisant, as a Committee, of what has been said in the House.
Dr. ADDISON: I am very sorry I allowed my enthusiasm for the subject to lead me a little beyond the bounds of order. I will promise not to do so again. With regard to the smallholdings expenditure, I intend, so far as one possibly can, to make sure that we can avoid the errors and extravagancies of the past. It is true that a large number of these undertakings are saddled with very high capital charges and, therefore, it has meant an increase of rent. We propose wherever it is economically sound, to group either the large-scale allotments or the smallholdings, if possible, nearer towns where the holders may live. Of course, that is only possible with regard to certain types of holdings, for instance market garden holdings. For chickens, poultry and livestock the holder must practically live on the place, or sufficiently near it. Still, up and down the country, especially in the smaller colliery villages, there are several instances where there is plenty of ground around and it will be very necessary to improve it and provide groups of holdings without having to provide new houses. It is on that point that some of the calculations for the five-acre holdings are so substantially below the cost of previous undertakings. For example, we estimate that, where a five-acre poultry holding is established within the reach of an existing home, the total cost will probably be about £310. A market garden holding of a similar kind will be about £500, and, these being established so far as possible, it will diminish the average cost of the holdings as a whole. I can assure the Committee that we pro-pose to do everything possible to take advantage of the lessons of the past. I think that any hon. Member of this House, casting his mind over the debate which is now closed, whether it relates to the experimental large-scale farms or whether to reconditioning or smallholdings and allotments, must feel that here is a form of capital expenditure which the State ought to have undertaken more bravely a long time ago, and that it is desirable that there should be energetic, sensible, and practical administration. If any hon. Member has any suggestion which will help us to improve and make more businesslike the administration, I shall welcome it gladly. While that is so, I am encouraged in this enterprise by the
346
words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), which, I think, were deliberately chosen, when he said that in this enterprise of developing our own home land, we must, if necessary, be brutal in our methods. In other words, we have to go along with this enterprise bravely. When one hears an account, as I did this afternoon from an hon. Gentleman, of an experiment with which I am fully acquainted which is being financed separately for the growing of a certain plant in certain districts—I hope that it will be successful, and any help which we can give we shall gladly give to make it successful—when it conies to an enterprise of that sort, whether it is the growing of this particular plant in England or of rubber in the Malay States or anything else anywhere in the wide world, it is said to be business enterprise, but, if we try to do it at a, correspondingly small outlay by developing the land, I am held up as a sort of prodigal son, an extravagant fellow, who is trying to lead our country into all kinds of wild enterprises. I think that the justification for this Resolution is the debate which has taken place.
8.0 p.m.
Sir HARRY HOPE: I rise to oppose the granting of the sums named in the Financial Resolution. I do not desire merely to raise controversial points, but to apply a few practical tests to the main provisions of this Bill for which money is now being asked. Part I of the Bill proposes that large-scale nationalised farming be adopted. Before we approve of money for that purpose, let us consider very carefully what we are going to gain by the establishment of those large-scale nationalised farms. The industry of farming, as everybody knows who has any practical association with it, is a very individualistic one. No industry is so dependent upon individualistic effort and judgment as the agricultural industry. Continual observation, untiring attention to details and an intelligent and accurate appreciation of difficulties are absolutely essential. There is nothing mechanical about the industry. It is, in fact, the last industry suitable for nationalisation. Therefore, why should this experiment of Socialism be tried upon an industry which is so unsuitable.

347
It is curious to see a party which is so enthusiastic about smallholdings, as Part II of the Bill indicates, pinning its faith at the same time to large-scale farming. It indicates evidently that the Ministry recognise that, as regards arable land farming success can be achieved by the large unit. As regards arable land farming, it is no doubt correct that advantages can be gained by operations being conducted on a large scale, but of course it all depends who are going to conduct those operations. The Bill proposes the appointment of Government managers. At present, we have large-scale farming in operation carried out by men of proved skill, experience and capacity. The men who have engaged in these large-scale farming operations are proved men who know their business from A to Z and know their craft by instinct. No man can make a full success of an industry unless he knows the industry.
Instead of men such as those coining in to manage these large-scale farms, we are going to have officialdom of all kinds and degrees brought into existence. There may be good men among these officials, but I would remind the Committee that there is truth in the saying that a good man does not need a master. These officials will have masters. In England, they will have masters at Whitehall; in Scotland, they will have masters in the Department of Agriculture sitting in Edinburgh. Everybody knows that, whatever the master is, his influence permeates through the ranks of those serving under him. It may be said by Members on the Front Bench opposite that we are going to have knowledgeable men appointed as commissioners to carry on this work, and yet it will be the masters at Whitehall who will always influence and dominate the work done by them.
Another fact which will arise out of the establishment of these large-scale nationalised farms is that we shall have disturbances created in the minds of the agricultural community. The farmers of this country will never be secure in their tenure. I have had a long association with agriculture, and I know that no man can make the most of his industry or his calling unless he knaves that he is going to be allowed to carry on. With large-
348
scale farms being liable to be started at any time and with land being taken for the purpose, you may have such a feeling of disturbance and insecurity created among the farmers of this country that they will be robbed of much of the best incentive for making a success of their craft. The taking up of land in connection with nationalised farms is going to break into the progressive sequence, which is of so much value, of having at the bottom of the ladder the smallholder, of enabling a man to keep in the industry and to get his foot on to the first rung of the ladder, and after that to obtain a small farm, and then to make further progression to the large farm. That sequence is going to be disturbed and destroyed, and I am afraid that it will have a bad effect, and that the dead hand of Government interference will seriously prejudice practical agriculture in this country.
When I come to Part II, of the Bill I, as do many hon. Members, recognise that smallholdings are good things to encourage. They enable the man to get his foot upon the first rung of the agricultural ladder. They are a social gain to the State but, while saying that, it is well that we should recognise that in regard to arable land cultivation, where the production of cereals and potatoes are the main products grown, smallholdings will produce their produce at a higher cost per unit than will the large farms. Some hon. Members may ask me to prove that statement. I will give one illustration. Take as an example 1,000 acres of land divided into three moderately sized farms of 333 acres each. In the other case consider that those 1,000 acres are divided up into 30 smallholdings of 33 acres each. In the first case where you have a farm of 333 acres you have the use of about 40 acres for a field. Where you have the smallholding of 33 acres you have the use of a field five acres in size. This is perhaps a technical point, but it is worthy of attention. There are what we call in Scotland end riggs, the ground on which the horses and the implements turn. With a 40 acre field the end riggs which are damaged by the turning of the horses and the implements will mean two acres in area, or 5 per cent. of the total field. As regards the five acre field, there will be three-quarters of an acre of these damaged end riggs, which come

349
to 15 per cent. of the five acres. The result is that there is a larger proportion of wastage in land which is cultivated in a five acre plot than on land cultivated in a 40 acre plot.
Some hon. Members may ask what that all comes to in £ s. d. It is always necessary in any business to understand accurately the cost of production and what the effect of any operation may be. Agriculture is sometimes said to be an industry which is not carried on on business lines. I have had a long connection with agriculture, and I think that in many cases it is carried on on business lines. Applying that test to the illustration which I have given, I find this, and it. is of importance, that if those two fields, one of 40 acres and the other of five acres, were under potatoes, with the proportion of damage round each which I have described, and if the crop yield per acre was eight tons, the reduction caused by the damaged area in the case of the two acres occupied by the end riggs would result in a loss of eight tons, because the crops on the end riggs are only half of the crop in the rest of the field. Therefore, if those potatoes were priced at 00s.a ton there would be a loss of 12 cwt. in the small field and 4 cwt. in the large field, working out at a cost of £1 4s. spread over the five acres in the small field and of only 8s. in the larger field. This s the practical loss simply because one field was small.
I pass from that aspect of the matter, and I see other influences which tend to make the cost of production higher in a smallholding than in a moderately sized farm of 330 acres. The first influence is that it takes a longer time to cultivate the small field than to cultivate the larger field. The extra cost will certainly be up to 10 per cent. It will cost 10 per cent. more to cultivate land in small plots of five acres than to cultivate land in larger plots of 40 acres. Another very important influence operating against the small-holder is that he has not and cannot have a full supply of modern, up-to-date implements.
Mr. PALIN: He has his hands.
Sir H. HOPE: My hon. Friend thinks that the smallholder can work with his hands. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has a very scanty knowledge of farming operations if he is not aware that the
350
great tendency of the last 20 years has been the development of labour-saving machines. There are new machines that have been brought out which it would be impossible for the smallholder to buy because the cost of them would absolutely submerge all the money that he has got. Therefore we find that whilst smallholdings have many points in their favour, principally the benefit to the social welfare of the State, there are important practical influences always operating against them. My remarks so far apply to smallholdings carrying on arable cultivation. The same things do not operate where they arc producing stock or going in for dairying. Therefore it is in those districts of the country most suitable for those types of farming that the smallholdings may be the best success. For the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that the creation of smallholdings is the panacea for the restitution of British agriculture, is to make a statement absolutely devoid of practical truth. By all means let us have smallholdings, but let us adopt them in moderation because most things generally are best adopted in moderation.
Sums of money are to be spent on what is called reconditioning and reclaiming land. When this House is considering spending money in that direction, it would be wise to recognise the facts of the case and pay a tribute to owners of land for the way in which they have spent their money in developing the land in the past. Enormous slims of money have been spent by landowners in developing their land for which they have got but a very small return. In fact, there is much land which at the present time is not yielding even 5 per cent. on the capital sunk, and in most cases nothing at all in the shape of revenue. When we talk about the State coming in to recondition land, we shall not be viewing the whole situation as it is or paying a tribute where it is due unless we recognise the good work which has been done by landowners in England and Scotland in past years. Landowners have also done an enormous amount of good for the development of British agriculture by spending money upon the improvement of the breeds of all our stocks. This has brought the present stock of the country up to a very high standard, which would never have been the case except for the encouragement given it by land-

351
owners. I mention this because it is often said by hon. Members opposite, I am sure they do not mean it, that landowners have neglected their duties and obligations in the past.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Hear, hear!
Sir H. HOPE: If the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would only come and stay with me in Forfar-shire—I shall be glad to see him—
Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the Highland clearances?
Sir H. HOPE: I will not discuss the Highlands just now. If the hon. Member will come with me, I can take him through Forfarshire and show him estates where money has been spent on improvements which have brought the landowners practically no return at all. Instead of this money being spent by the State, we should be doing better work if we were to give grants to landowners. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think that is a joke, but would it not be good financial business to give grants to landowners and make them responsible for the money? They can spend the money with knowledge and discretion, and the State would escape a capital loss and get interest at a low rate from the landowner.
I said at the commencement of my speech that I would not raise controversial points, but I would appeal to the Government to drop Part I of the Bill altogether and not bring into existence a system of nationalised farms which have never been a success wherever they have been tried. Rather let us turn our attention to the creation of smallholdings where they can wisely be made and give grants to landowners so that the good work of the past can be carried on. The money will be wisely spent, the State will not lose because the owners will still be responsible for it. It is possible for British agriculture to be revitalised. It is possible for this House to take a wise step at this time by enabling land to be used for finding more employment for our people, but in order to get more employment for our people it is absolutely necessary to make sure that the occupiers of land will be able to make a success of their holdings. Therefore,
352
the first step to be taken is to stop foreign dumping which is ruining the country—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. Member a great deal of latitude, but on this Money Resolution the argument must be confined to reasons for or against voting the money asked for.
Sir H. HOPE: I was just finishing. I thought that what I was saying was a necessary part of my argument, but I will carry it no further. I oppose the granting of this sum of money, because I feel that it is not a wise step to take at this time and that we should help this great and important industry of agriculture much more by treating it in a different fashion.
Mr. KEDWARD: Hon. Members will be interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope), but I did not quite understand why, after going to such trouble to prove that smallholdings would be unsuccessful, extravagant and wasteful, he urged that they should be tried in moderation. The real test as to the sincerity of the Government in bringing forward their proposals lies in the amount of money they are prepared to devote to the subject. That is the drive behind the scheme. Without money the scheme will be just a dead letter. I am glad that the Government are prepared to spend an adequate amount of money to bring back to the land the population of this country, where they may live a healthy life and, despite the spirit of defeatism which has been noticeable on the benches above the Gangway, bring back prosperity to the countryside. I feel sure that if we are prepared to devote a sufficient amount of money agriculture can be put on its feet without resorting to any of the many expedients which are popular with so many people to-day. I was brought up on what will be known as a smallholding, a farm of about 100 acres, in times more difficult than they are to-day. We were given a chance, 10 of us, on the holding and an opportunity of entering into life. For people to say that agriculture is suffering from a depression from which it cannot recover is to disregard the real facts of the case and to close your

353
eyes to the fact that there are many people who are still able to make certain forms of agriculture pay.
The hon. Member has said that if you break up the land you will have terrific losses because the cultivation of small fields is much more costly than the cultivation of larger fields. I assume that on smallholdings there will not be a great deal of cereals grown. If any hon. Member followed the more modern methods of intensive cultivation on smallholdings he would know that along the line of small fields success is to be found. Take the splitting up of so many pasture fields, which is now going on. You have big pasture fields, and you divide them into small fields of not more than five acres. You cultivate them, put on basic slag and kainite, and nitrate of soda in the spring, and you increase the productivity of the land four or five or six times. On small holdings you can increase the productivity to that extent. When people are farming on a large scale and raising sheep over large areas you could bring all the land into profitable cultivation and provide a living for far more people.
It is because the Bill appeals to me on that ground that I shall support the Money Resolution. It has been said that there arc people who know very little about the land, that they will fail, and that the money will be lost. Many people have lost money by farming be cause they do not understand a great deal about it. I remember a wealthy broker who bought a farm just after the War, lock, stock and barrel. While the house was being repaired to make it fit for habitation he left a bailiff in charge. The bailiff was to report to him once a week. All went well for a time, until one day the broker, in turning over the pages of his newspaper, saw, "Sharp rise in the price of wool." He telegraphed to the bailiff: "Start shearing at once." The bailiff wrote back that that was impossible, because he was in the middle of lambing. The broker wired in reply, "Stop lambing and start shearing." Of course, he was not a small-holder and not even an unemployed man.
There are in the villages to-day numbers of people who have waited for years and are still waiting for an opportunity to get on the land—people who are used to it and know all about it. I have been
354
doing my level best for three months to find a place for two people who are being dispossessed of a smallholding. In the same village there are others brought up on the land who are denied an opportunity of getting a living because land and houses are not available. Added to that there is a council which has never built a single house under the Rural Housing Act. I welcome this Bill because it will provide money that will give an opportunity to thousands who wish to return to the land. Members of the Conservative party must know the facts and must receive letters as I receive them. Only this morning I received two letters. To one was attached a reply sent by the county council. My correspondent had asked the council whether land was available for a smallholding, and the reply of the council was to advise him to apply to the nearest land agents. Of course, the man had exhausted all those resources beforehand.
Therefore, I am glad that money is to be provided not merely to be used by the Councils, but that if the Councils default the Ministry has power to spend the money, and to see that the purpose of the Bill is not defeated. I hope that no part of this money will be provided for redeeming tithe rent-charge fixed at the present price. In 1925 very heavy burdens were placed upon the land. by the Government of the day who fixed tithe at 105, and £4 10s. per £100 for redemption. That charge cannot issue out of the land. It is because of this burden that so many men in agriculture have difficulty in making a living. I have been associated with agriculture the whole of my life, and I think there are runny fields in which a smallholder can make a profitable living. To refer to smallholders as likely to lead the lives of slaves is ridiculous. The Bill will provide them with a happy, healthy and free way of life. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward a, Money Resolution of this magnitude, and I hope that the scheme will be so successful that it will be necessary to come to the House for more money to extend the Bill's operation.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to follow the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope), who took exception to Part I of the Bill, because he said it spelt Socialism. It is largely because of the

355
semblance of Socialism in the Bill that I support it. Part I and this Money Resolution are going to give us the power to buy the land from the landlord and to put people back on the land. Who is largely responsible for people not being on the land? The landlord. Who is it that cleared the Highlands of Scotland and made them deserted glens? The landlords. They drove my race out of the Highlands with fire and sword, and forced them to the uttermost parts of the earth. Now we are in this situation—that we have to go to the descendants of the men who did that and purchase the land from them. The land has always been the property of the State. That was no idle phrase during the War. Everyone of you said then that we had the right to defend our native land. Where is our native land? How much of it have we got when we want the use of it, to do what is absolutely necessary—as is admitted by every section in this House irrespective of political opinions—namely, to produce food for this country? When we want the use of it for that purpose we have to buy the land from the landlords and not only that, but we are only to be allowed to buy land which has been neglected. The landlord is to be warned that, unless he looks after the land, it will be acquired. The hon. Member for Forfar said that the manner in which the landlords of this country had transacted their business was a credit to the country. This Bill is a denial in tote of that statement. It makes provision to deal with facts and
"Facts are chiels that winna ding, An' downa be disputed."
It has been said on both sides of the House that millions of acres of land have fallen out of cultivation in this country, since the War and have become waterlogged and so forth. No less a personage than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made that statement and now we are asked to spend money in buying such land. I hope that the Minister will be very careful, because the landlords are the greatest bloodsuckers that this country ever had. Before this party formed the Government of the country the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—I am sorry he is not in his place—said time
356
and time again and also wrote that the landlords of our country were a band of robbers and parasites. That being the case, it ought to be quite unnecessary for me to remind the Minister to be very careful when buying this land, because the landlord may say, "This piece of land is no good to me, so I am going to let it become derelict and you can have it." We could have a regular ramp, so to speak, in regard to the type of land which the Government would get and landlords of the type of the hon. Member for Forfar would retain the finest land in Scotland for themselves. The Minister must safeguard himself against that kind of thing.
The hon. Member for Forfar also said that agriculture a-as the last industry which could be mechanised, but he afterwards contradicted himself because he pointed out that he was not in favour of men using their hands in agriculture. Neither am I. We have got away from the days of "back to the land," and of the pick and shovel. We have got away from the cry of Rousseau and Voltaire. We belong to a race and a generation who believe that every mechanical appliance that can be applied should be applied to agriculture as well as to everything else. The hon. Member objected to the Government taking over these large farms as proposed in the Bill because, he said, agriculture was essentially an industry which lent itself to individual enterprise and you could not have it on a large scale. He said that it had failed everywhere it had been tried on that scale. I suppose he meant such experiments as that which we had when the Glasgow Corporation ran their own farm. He said that in all those cases it had not been a success. But we must have regard to the fact that the greatest farms in the world, where great production is taking place, are the great prairie farms in Canada. There we find reaping machines which not only cut the corn, but make it ready to be taken from the field to the elevator, eliminating human labour, comparatively speaking, as effectively as the most up-to-date machines used in the great shipbuilding and engineering industry in our country. We Socialists are all out for that. We are not in favour of finding work for men simply in order that they

357
may work. We, as a generation, have the benefit of science, machinery and organisation, and we are going to use that benefit to the fullest extent.
That brings me to Part II of the Bill which deals with smallholdings. I do not know much about smallholdings in England, but I do know something about them in the land of my nativity—Scotland. I have worked smallholdings or assisted at that work for years and I know what it is. It is no sinecure; it is a stern reality. I entered into it with enthusiasm in order to see if there was anything in it which would be beneficial to the men whom I represent, the men on the Clyde belonging to the shipbuilding and engineering industry, thousands of whom will never work again at their own trade, with rationalisation and. disarmament going on. But here in this Bill is a new arrangement. With all its good points, there is no rationalization for the agricultural industry. We are attempting here to put back the hands of the clock. We are going to put more men on the land, and it is entirely a reversal of the whole attitude of mind of the Government in everything they have done up to the present. We are going to spend money on seeing smallholdings established after a good deal of thought has been put into the question by my colleagues. I am satisfied that they are doing the very best they can here, but I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture that he will have to be very judicious with what he does with the money with which this Financial Resolution will provide him to get smallholdings.
The idea is to get work for the unemployed. That would be all very well, but you have to remember that this is a job that requires, not ordinary but outstanding skill, and you have to remember that the individual is no clodhopper who can drive a pair of horses in a furrow and can cut the furrow almost in a dead straight line. When you talk of getting back to the land, it is all very well for city men and town men and women to take a walk out into the country on a fine summer evening, or a Saturday afternoon, or on the Sabbath day, when the lark is singing in the sky and every flower in the garden is lovely, but it is a different matter when the stormy winds are blowing. You have to remember also
358
that in the country from which I come the climatic conditions are of a very severe character, and that we have five months in the year of very severe weather. If the Government have all that in their minds, they will be very careful in what they do.
I agree that there could be money wisely spent in market gardening and in producing vegetables, because we import into this country £12,000,000 worth of vegetables in the year. It is quite true that that could he done in and around our great cities and towns quite successfully, I believe. There is an item that is not mentioned, and I do not know how that is, because the Minister of Health is an authority on the subject himself. I refer to pig rearing. We import into this country £50,000,000 worth of bacon in the year, and that could be produced quite well here. Also money could be spent, out of all this money that you will get under this Resolution, in poultry rearing in and around our big industrial centres, but here again it cannot be done at the moment—I can speak with authority on that question—because the small poultry keeper to-day has to buy his grain retail and to sell his produce wholesale. I can see signs in this Bill of that tragedy being removed, but to take it on a great scale, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, with millions to be spent, hundreds of millions,. in order to find a way out for the unemployed, to take them away into the fastnesses of the Highlands and elsewhere, would be ruinous under those conditions.
9.0 p.m.
You have not only to remember the climatic conditions; you have also to have regard to the fact, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, that you arc dealing now with a generation that has been far removed from your rural countryside and brought up under city conditions. Do you think it is going to be possible to take those men and women from the city and place them away in the country? How are they going to feel when they are denied all the privileges and all the joys of city life? Do you think that; we, who represent the working class in this House., are going to stand for our class being forced into the smallholding business, with the idea that they have at the moment that they will be their own boss? It is the greatest delusion that ever

359
existed in the history of this country, this of being their own boss. They wilt be under the most tyrannical boss, the most tyrannical, slave-driving boss in the history of the land, and that is land and stock, the curse of Adam. Are we going to stand for seeing our folks, though they may be unemployed, surrender all that has been handed down to us by our forefathers, who struggled in order that we might enjoy the rights that we have, such as our eight-hour day—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a speech which might have been quite suitable for the Second Reading—
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I could not get in.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was unfortunate. But the hon. Gentleman Must comply with the Rules of Debate as they apply to the Resolution before the Committee.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to say, as far as you will permit me, that we are arriving at a situation in which all the markets of the world are glutted with wheat and meat, of every kind of foodstuff, and of every kind of manufactured goods that man requires for a comfortable living. Yet we are going to put our folk on again still further to increase this great production. I want the Minister a Agriculture always to bear in mind that this Government should not be the means whereby the working-class of this country is used to enslave the entire working-class of the world. That is my warning while supporting the Minister of Agriculture in his endeavour to do what he can under very trying circumstances.
Marquess of HARTINGTON: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would conclude by saying that he would on this occasion follow hon. Members on this side against the Resolution about which he said a great many true and profound things. He made it clear to the Committee that he and others whom he represents have no use for smallholdings, and that people who have rather rosy and optimistic ideas about smallholdings will discover, if ever this Resolution be passed and the Bill become law, that the electors in Dumbarton are by no means alone in
360
the country in finding smallholdings more attractive from a distance than close to. This Resolution has been commended to the Committee for a number of reasons, very few of which take any account of the existing agricultural industry or deal with the facts as they are to-day.
The Minister of Agriculture, in commending the Resolution to the Committee, proceeded on assumptions which are entirely false. He talked, for instance, of ample money being available for planting rubber or cotton or coffee, and said that, with all this vast expenditure on crops of this kind, we can surely afford a few poor little millions for our agricultural industry at home. The Minister, new as he is to his office, can scarcely he unaware that the sums which have been invested in these crops are mere small change compared with what has been sunk in the land of England. For generations enormous sums have been poured into the land of this country, and a vast expenditure is necessary every year in order to keep the land fit for cultivation. The amount of money invested in the land of England is out of proportion altogether to what has ever been invested in all the crops which he mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman also said that agriculture is the only industry on which the application of capital on a large scale has not been possible. That is a mistaken view. Capital has been available in large quantities. Cooperative societies, for instance, are favourably situated for carrying on farming, and he must be aware that they have farmed on a large scale, and have lost very large sums of money. For that reason and for many others, I am profoundly convinced that this experiment of large-scale farming is likely to be a costly and complete failure.
There have been many opportunities of large-scale farming. The large landowning institutions of the country, such as the hospitals, city corporations, and endowed colleges and schools are quite as favourably situated as is the right hon. Gentleman's Department for conducting large-scale farming. They have not done so, because, having had some experience of the subject, and having been landowners over a long series of years, they know that there is no more certain way of dropping money than by embarking on large-scale farming. The

361
large landowners of the country, of whom some still remain, are better situated than Whitehall for carrying on experiments in large-scale farming, but, except in a few individual cases of very rich men who can afford a large loss, you will not find it being done, for the simple and very good reason that it does not and cannot pay. Throughout the country the economic size of individual farms varies. Some parts of England are more suitable for large farms than others, but there is a definite limit beyond which the size of a farm cannot be economically increased. It is a pity that this Committee should vote a large sum of money—and I take it more may be required later on—to find out what almost anyone, who has any practical experience In agriculture, knows perfectly well already.
There is one part of the Resolution with which, I believe, the overwhelming majority of Members on all sides will be in full sympathy; that is the part dealing with allotments. All of us wish to see allotment development extended, and will agree that a moderate expenditure on increasing allotments will be money well spent. It is necessary to warn the Committee, however, that there are great difficulties in the way of giving the allotment holders security of tenure. We all agree that that is desirable, but it is extremely difficult, and the right hon. Gentleman will find himself in great difficulties if he embarks upon that course. Important as allotments are, houses are more important. Allotments are usually on the outskirts of growing towns, and to leave the land as allotments instead of developing them as building land adds very largely to the cost of the development operations. You have unproductively to run roads, sewers, gas and water mains, and all the other elaborate business that town-planning requires, for considerable distances, and the cost of building is largely increased if you attempt to leave allotments where they are, and do not push them out with the building line. We shall find ourselves saddled with very large costs or we shall run the risk of increasing the cost of building unless it be recognised that, deserving as allotments are, they must give way to what is even more important, and that is housing.
As I have listened to these debates I have felt a certain amount of surprise
362
that Part II of the Bill, which deals with the provision of smallholdings, was introduced at all. As a means of dealing with unemployment there may be something to be said for Part II, though I confess that at short notice I can think of no way in which we could spend so much money on unemployment with so little result, but as a contribution to the really pressing difficulties of agriculture it is not only useless hut very much worse than useless. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has made one big experiment with the nation's money, and it seems to me that he is doing now, only the opposite way round, very much what he did then. At that time there was an acute shortage of houses, labour in the building trade was scarce, and house building materials were scarce and dear, and the right hon. Gentleman, with the nation's money bags behind him, came on to a rising market, made the cost of building fantastically high to himself and prohibitive to everyone else.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is this in order?
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is now embarking on a controversial subject quite outside the terms of this Resolution.
Marquess of HARTINGTON: I apologise. I had finished what I had to say on that point. The trouble in agriculture now is that we have a falling market, and the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to make the same mistake the other way round and is corning in on a falling market, and proposing to subsidise cheap production, than which nothing could be more disastrous to agriculture at the present time. These new smallholdings are to be subsidised to the extent of something like 220 an acre, and those farmers who are fortunate enough still to be able to pay income tax are to help to pay that subsidy. While the money lasts—and I personally believe it will not last very long, because only in exceptional cases will the smallholdings meet with any large measure of success—the right hon. Gentleman's new smallholders will be in a position, with this subsidy at their backs, to undersell those farmers who are already struggling to make both ends meet. I believe no greater injury could be done to those already in agriculture than to pass this Resolution. It is a

363
cruel affront to farmers who are struggling with terrible difficulties to come in on a falling market and to subsidise cheap production to compete with them. It cannot fail to do them very serious damage, unless something is done meanwhile, through improved marketing or other means, to ensure that agricultural produce, of which there is a glut at the present time, can be sold on better terms.
I should like to reply to the hon. Member who sits below me on the Liberal benches and who asked a question of an hon. Member who was speaking from these benches. My hon. Friend had been saying that on the whole he thought smallholdings would not pay and went on to say, at the same time, that he wanted them supported in moderation. The hon. Member asked him why. I think the answer is a very simple one. It is that there are only certain cases in which smallholdings can be made to succeed. Given a market, given the right kind of soil, the right climate and the right kind of smallholder, there is undoubtedly a great deal to be done; hut in many parts of England not much can be done. For instance, the smallholdings in Derbyshire were a tragic picture this year. We had a disastrous hay harvest. In the very nature of things a smallholding cannot carry the agricultural plant and machinery necessary to get in the hay quickly, and the smallholders' hay was, with very few exceptions, spoiled.
Mr. KEDWARD: So was everybody else's.
Marquess of HARTINGTON: The hon. Member is quite wrong. There was a short period during which the hay harvest went ahead and in which we got some hay in extremely good condition; hut in the usual way the smallholder has to wait to borrow machinery from a neighbouring farm which is large enough to carry a full up-to-date equipment, and when the weather breaks it is inevitable that the smallholder should hear the brunt of the blow. That was the case this year, and it must often be the case, and for that reason I think it is more than doubtful whether, in most of the grazing districts, smallholdings can he made a success. But that is not to say they will never be made a success or
364
that no money should ever be spent upon their development. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member say anything?
Mr. HAYCOCK: I was merely saying that if you could only control the weather and make sunshine, then the Tory party would be very enthusiastic about smallholdings.
Marquess of HARTINGTON: I think the hon. Member has put the matter very nicely. If we could be quite sure that, smallholders would suffer none of the misfortunes to which they are more prone than other farmers, there might be a great deal more to be said for them; but, things being as they are, I believe that the large expenditure of money contemplated in this Resolution will have but very small results as a solution of the unemployment problem. If, on the other hand, it produces a, large effect, if any very substantial number of men should settle on the land, that must have a really disastrous effect on those farmers who are now trying to make both ends meet and will drive more of them out of business. There are now very few farmers who are not up to the neck in debt at the bank, and anything which makes things harder for them must drive a very large number out of business altogether. For this reason I believe the Committee will be wasting money in passing this Resolution, and in voting against it I feel that I shall he doing a very sound thing.
Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: I do not propose to go into the question of the agricultural conditions on smallholdings, for the simple reason that my knowledge of them is superficial and would not he of the slightest value to the Committee, but I want to point out that the money to be spent will bring in returns which, though they will never appear in the statistics of the Board of Agriculture, are extremely important to the country as a whole. If you are well-to-do you can get fresh food. The poorer you are, the dearer your food is, and the worse is its quality. A great part of the produce consumed by people in the towns—eggs, butter, milk and vegetables—is poor in quality and very often stale. In our view, the provision of a much greater number of smallholdings, devoting themselves to the production of eggs and vegetables and small kinds of produce, is

365
of enormous advantage I to the working-classes in the towns. It is of enormous importance that we should give some chance to the people in trades such as shipbuilding and mining, and some of the other very depressed industries, of finding a new outlet for their energies. I do hope that, in spending this money, the Minister of Agriculture will not only look for his smallholders among those who have had actual agricultural experience, but that he will also consider whether he cannot give the first allotments to unemployed men who have not had just that experience, with a view to their taking smallholdings as they show themselves able to deal with the larger units.
Very few among them, perhaps, will be able to tackle smallholdings straight off, but we must remember that a great many people, in our depressed industries arc very highly skilled, and it is, after all, good brains that you want to apply to the land, just as much as mere manual force. In the debate we had yesterday that was made abundantly clear. The reason why the Jewish colonies in Palestine have been able to do so much to enrich the country and make their smallholdings, intensively cultivated, a success is that they have had the brains and energies to apply to their task. We have to-day among our unemployed people a very large number with a very high quality of brain power who have done very highly-skilled work in the engineering, shipbuilding and other professions, and who are now waiting to use their energies in a new way.
I wanted especially to have an opportunity of telling this House of a letter which I received two days before the Bill was introduced, which shows the way in which a very large number of people are looking upon it to-day. I had a letter from a woman whose husband is a riveter, a Welshman living in Newport. They lived there for some time, and he worked in the shipyards towards the end of the War. When employment stopped, he came away looking for work, first in Sunderland and then in London, but in the last 10 years he has hardly had more than a few months at his own trade. They have had to go back to Newport, and are living there now with an outlook which is quite hopeless as far as his own trade is concerned. She writes in her letter:
366
"Just think what it means to us. He is a man of 40, full of energy and ability and now quite hopeless about the future."
They have a son of 12 years, and that man and woman are looking at the boy, wondering what they can possibly do to ensure his future. She wrote in her letter:
"I hope every Member of the House will understand what this Bill would mean to people like ourselves."
They tried to go to Canada and become smallholders there, but could not afford the necessary capital which was required. Now they are hoping that in their own country they are going to have a chance of using their energy and capacity on this new work. I do hope the Minister of Agriculture is not going to insist in any rigid way on the people who come under the term of smallholders, or those who have allotments, being people who have had actual agricultural experience.
There is one other aspect upon which I should like to say a word. This money will be spent to help unemployed persons and I hope, including among those persons, women as well as men, the Minister will not only include, wives of men to whom smallholdings are allotted, for there are often 'Tomen, not wives, but single women, who are admirably suited to the work, especially poultry culture, on smallholdings or allotments. In the cotton district smallholdings might be worked by sisters who have previously been in the cotton industry. Some people say it is no use for weavers, hut I was recently in Lancashire and among the people I saw there many who a re looking forward to this chance of finding an outlet for their work.
The fear has been expressed that the money will be very extravagantly spent because the unemployed man or woman will settle down on an allotment with the dole, and be content to regard himself or herself as fixed there for life. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have a good deal of knowledge of people who have settled down with an allotment and a dole. The great difference between those whom they know most and those for whom we are pleading now is that the allotments were very large indeed, and that they themselves did not ever have to work them. After all, they had, in the very fullest sense of the words, an allotment and a dole, and, when hon. Members opposite speak of the expense

367
of the land and the vast sums of money that have been put into the land, they surely realise that even vaster sums have been taken out of the land than have been put into it. When they speak of the money that it has cost to keep the land, surely they realise that the landlords of the country have taken from the land vastly more than they have ever put into it. The fact does not need argument for it is perfectly obvious.
Captain GUNSTON: Will the hon. Lady give figures?
Dr. PHILLIPS: For centuries people have been living on the land and have been very rich out of the products of that land. Of course, they have made far more than they have put into it. How would they have got the money except from the land? If they have put it in it is because they took it out. However we consider the question of finance, I do hope we shall realise that this Bill has brought hope to hundreds of thousands of people and that it is a definite constructive effort to make good use of our own land in this country. We have heard for years about dealing with the unemployed by sending them abroad to other lands, and at last we are going to try to colonise our own land and to use our talents here.
There is just one other aspect that we ought always to remember in regard to a Bill of this kind. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said some very wise things about the hard work on smallholdings, but I think you can rationalise even smallholdings, and, if they are properly run, on a co-operative basis, with all the equipment that science can bring to hear, I think, perhaps, we can make the settlement of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen, their wives and families, in their own country as happy, as prosperous, and as pleasant for them as the smallholdings are in Denmark and some other countries abroad. There is no reason why our people should live lonely and isolated lives in smallholdings and allotments, for they can live close to one another and enjoy the benefits of those social contacts which are part of the pleasure of living in a town.
Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I am not going to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) in
368
her remarks about the owners of land. Hon. Members opposite seem to start with the idea that nobody is entitled to own any land. We do not agree with that. It seems to me a very remarkable thing that in paragraph after paragraph in the Financial Memorandum it is stated that it is impossible to find out what the liability of the State will be in regard to this Bill. Surely it is very unwise to proceed with a Measure of the financial effect of which we know so very little. It appears from the Financial Memorandum in the Bill that the Agricultural Land Corporation may spend £1,000,000 in establishing large-scale farms. It has been abundantly shown that large-scale farms in this country are quite unnecessary, and will serve no useful purpose whatever. The inevitable result of this policy will be to reduce employment on the land. I should like to ask a question with regard to Sub-section (3) of Clause 3, which provides that if a piece of land is in a seriously neglected condition, the Minister may order the owner to undertake the necessary works of maintenance. Very often, the owner of the land is the farmer. There are inefficient farmers just as there are inefficient people in other walks of life, but I believe that in most cases where land has got into a bad condition, it is because the farmer is financially unable to keep it in proper condition.
I would like to ask if a farmer in that position will be able to put that forward as a sufficient defence under Sub-section (3). With regard to smallholdings, obviously the amount of money to be spent under this Measure must depend On the number of applicants, but it does not follow that the greater the number of applicants, the greater will be the success of this Measure, because it remains to be seen whether the people who will be put on the land will make good. Many people who have worked all their lives as farmers have been unable to make farming pay, and I think it is a very unwise thing to put on the land people without any previous knowledge of agriculture. Surely it is unwise to introduce a Measure of this sort until steps have been taken to bridge the gap between what the producer receives for his produce and what it costs him to produce it. We are told that the Government intend to bring

369
forward other Measures for doing this, but the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told us that this Measure was the Minister's only chance, and that it will be a very long time before another Agricultural Bill is introduced. The only clear and definite statement in the Financial Memorandum is that the cost of the additional Government officials required "will clearly be large." Probably that consideration makes this Bill doubly acceptable to hon. Members opposite, but that in no way diminishes my opposition to the Bill.
Mr. ROSBOTHAM: I rise to support the Money Resolution now under discussion. I speak as one who has been connected with the soil all his life. I have been chairman of the Lancashire Smallholders' Association for 11 years and I will try to give some reasons to show why we shall get value for the money which is proposed to be spent under this Bill. I would like to show how we shall get value for our money in setting up demonstration farms. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have told us that we have sufficient demonstration farms, but I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that most of our demonstration farms are of a scientific nature and that the farms proposed to be set up under this Measure will be more of a practical character. We know that the motto of the Royal Agricultural Society is "Practice and Science" and science is put last. I know of many farmers who have made a success of the cultivation of the soil who could neither read nor write, and who had no knowledge whatever of scientific agriculture or mathematics and yet they have made a big success of farming.
I agree that it is important that we should get the practical side of agriculture well established and give those engaged in the agricultural industry a chance of getting practical knowledge. By setting up demonstration farms we shall get good value for the money which it is proposed to expend upon them. We should get value for our money if we had on the demonstration farms all the latest agricultural machinery and the newest appliances to be placed at the disposal of the smallholders and cultivators in the neighbourhood so that they might be shown how to work them, and they might
370
be hired out at a small cost. Advice should be given to the smallholders as to the most suitable crops to be produced in certain areas, and that applies more particularly to fruit and potato crops. The allotment holders and smallholders ought to be advised as to what variety of trees or vegetables they should plant.
With regard to the reclamation of land and the reconditioning of land, I think that if the Government acquire the land at its present value and recondition it, they will affect a great saving for the nation. After the Land Drainage Act has been operated, there will be large tracts of land which will require reclaiming and reconditioning. It is quite true that we have large areas of valuable land in this country which is flooded and waterlogged, and after the operation of the Land Drainage Act that land will require attention, and it will pay well. The land taken over at its present value will increase in value, and its reclamation and reconditioning will find work for a lot of men. In that way we shall be able to save a good deal of money by taking the men off the unemployment dole. That policy will bring business to builders, tradesmen and others.
I think that the Bill will give power to the Minister to acquire estates when they come into the market. If those powers had been in operation years ago many estates could have been acquired, and this would have obviated many of the best tenants on those estates being dispossessed. Shortly after the War many large estates were put on to the market and sold, and many cultivators, farmers and agricultural workers were dispossessed and thrown out of employment. If at that Lime the Minister had been empowered to acquire those estates and turn them into smallholdings, all those workers might have been kept on the land, and that policy would have been of very great value to the nation. In that Clause we shall get good value for the money it is proposed to spend.
With regard to demonstrations of smallholdings and cottage holdings, I could tell the Committee of holdings in Lancashire under grass culture, market gardening, poultry,' and every style of smallholding. Some of the tenants are people who went into industry after having been some time on the land, and have now come back to the land, and in Lancashire they are making a great success of it. It

371
is futile to say that such people will not snake a success of it, because we have it on record there that they are doing so. If some of these up-to-date holdings could be turned into demonstration holdings for the time being, and people taken there to have lessons, I am sure it would be to the benefit of the community. I do not say that we ought to ask these people to give the benefit of their advice free, because it is not right to take up their intelligence and time, of which they could be making use.
As I have mentioned before in the House, the Lancashire County Council in 1912, under the Act of 1908, made four of these smallholdings of two and a-half acres each. One of the tenants was a man who had no capital, but he has now made enough money to retire upon. That again shows what can be done,. and we should have been able to do much better if we had had the advantage of such provisions as this Bill contains, in order to provide men like that with a little capital with which to buy tools, seeds and so on. It is surprising what can be done in such cases by growing what is required for the market and growing it at the right time. That man's bill for Dutch bulbs alone last year was over £300. He is on the telephone, has a lorry to take his goods to market, and his motto is, "Do not waste a minute of the man who has not got one to spare." That proves that this work, as has been said, means energy, but that energy is not hard work when you love the land and love your work. The hard work is taken out of it when you love the business in which you are working.
Although we have been very successful in this way in Lancashire, we had a setback in 1926, when we established 38 holdings under the new Act. 'Under Section 12 of that Act, these cottage holdings had to be bought by agricultural workers. We had a lot of applications from agricultural workers who, having left the land and gone into industry, wished to come back on to the land, but we could not, under that Section, let cottage holdings to these men. The present Measure proposes to do away with that disability, so that it will be possible to let cottage holdings to any suitable applicants. That will enable us to save money and to get suitable men back to the land to produce foodstuffs for the nation.
372
As to allotments, I am a strong supporter of the allotment system, but insecurity has killed the spirit of many allotment holders in this country. I know of some who have been moved four times from their allotments, and I trust that the Minister will see that security is given to them under this new Bill. I do not see why allotments should not be fixed under a town planning system, and so situated that there will be no danger of having to remove the tenants for some time to come. No industry or business can be a success if there is not security in it, but with security of tenure work can be found far people on these allotments. I would suggest that there should be a model shed on each, and that nothing unsightly should be allowed to be erected on them. As long as money is provided for equipment, the Minister would have some say as to the style of shed to be erected.
A good deal has been said about the amount of money that is to be spent under this Bill, but 1 would draw the attention of the Committee to the £23,000,000 that has been spent in mining. How much of that did we get back for the community? [Interruption] I am sorry if I am getting out of order. In spending this money for the purchase of land, we shall have the rent as income, and the expenditure is not as large as it appears to be at first sight. On many estates, also, the value of the land will be increased. On one estate which the Lancashire County Council bought for land settlement, we paid £50 an acre, and there happened to be an old beerhouse on the estate. We kept it—
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): I am afraid that we cannot go into the reasons why a beerhouse was kept or not kept.
Mr. ROSBOTHAM: I was only going to show how, when estates are thus acquired, the value of the land is increased. On that estate, some of it is worth 5s. a yard for building purposes, and we made £5,000 after selling the old beerhouse.
The annual value of the poultry industry in this country, including eggs and table fowls, is £24,000,000. We talk about the growing of wheat and barley

373
and oats, but the poultry industry is equal in value to all the cereals put together, wheat, oats and barley, and is equal to all the potatoes, fruit and vegetable crops. Therefore, if we can raise more poultry on the Land, the money will be well spent and we shall be getting good value for it. One large arable farmer, who was farming on the ordinary four-course rotation, gave it up arid took a six-acre smallholding, on which he established a poultry farm on
scientific lines. While he was losing money on his arable farm, he is very comfortably situated and making money out of his poultry farm, and is a happier and more contented man.
To show that, if we agree to this Money Resolution and get the Bill passed, we shall save money nationally, I may mention that last year we imported vegetables to the value of £1,500,000, not reckoning potatoes, and we imported £4,400,000 worth of tomatoes, which we could grow in this country, finding work, not only for the men actually engaged in growing them, but for others in building glasshouses, supplying fertilisers, and so on. We also imported canned vegetables and tomatoes to the value of £1,230,000. All of these we could grow at home, thereby saving money and keeping it at home, and finding work for our people instead of paying it to the foreigner. In the canning industry, 50 factories have been established during recent years. Next year, we may not have black currants at all. It is not every year that we get a, good crop. They could have been preserved and canned for next year instead of being allowed to go to rot. Many districts grow two crops in one year by intensive cultivation. In my district, they grow early potatoes, and then savoys, brussels sprouts, and cauliflowers. Last year, the second crop made more than the early potatoes, You get intensive cultivation by the smallholding system. The value of green peas last year was £24 10s. an acre, brussels sprouts £41; cabbages £59, and cauliflowers £93. Potatoes did not make as much. There is a demand for smallholdings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) has quoted a letter Since the Bill was introduced last Thursday I, as chairman of the committee,
374
have been inundated with letters asking when the Bill is going to be passed and when they are going to be settled on the land. A land agent was here to-day, and he told me that his post bag had increased and that his office was never free from people calling to see him and ask when they were going to get smallholdings. I got a letter from an ex-service man, 36 years of age, with three little children. He was brought up on the land, and he does not know what to do to get land to establish a poultry farm. So there is a demand, and there are the right type of people. All the money that we spend will be well spent, and we shall get real value from it if we re-establish the countryside and re-establish and maintain a rural population, which is the most, valuable asset that any country possesses.
Captain CAZALET: The hon. Member has made one or two very interesting statements which show that he ought to be sitting on this side of the House. He told us that without security there could be no success. I hope he will remember that when the Bill dealing with site valuation conies before the House. He also gave some very good arguments why we ought to grow various foodstuffs to employ our people and not import them from abroad. When those arguments are used in regard to manufactured articles—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the Resolution.
Captain CAZALET: I was not going to pursue it. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) gave interesting statistics about the amount of money that landlords and farmers have taken out of the land. They will be interested to hear that at least for 10 years they have got far more out of the land than they have ever put into it. If she wishes for confirmation of that, she ought to go to the Income Tax collectors and see what statistics they could produce as to the profits that landlords have made in the last few years.
Dr. PHILLIPS: I said nothing about 10 years. I was referring to the landlords who had had land for a great deal longer than 10 years. They had their allotments and they stayed on them.
10.0 p.m.
Captain CAZALET: I do not think that this is the time to go into the profits made between 1880 and 1900. If the hon. Lady wishes to go further back, it is more a
matter of history than of agriculture. The Minister introduced the Bill with so much moderation and tact that it seemed at first very hard to oppose it.
The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing now, not with the Bill, but with the Money Resolution.
Captain CAZALET: I was going to say that he took the same attitude in introducing the Resolution. He would have us to believe that this £6,000,000 is really nothing at all and that the result's that are going to flow from the productive expenditure of these millions are going to revolutionise the countryside. He assured us that there was going to be no extravagance. He assured us that the demonstration farms were going to be run on an economic and commercial basis and that only the right people were to be appointed. I should like to say one or two words in regard to big farms and demonstration farms. There are already in many districts either individuals or institutions or colleges which have, in every department of agriculture, experimented for many years past in big farming operations. All the statistics and all the results of those experiments are available to-day. I have in my constituency, which is a neighbouring one to that of the Minister himself, an example of a large farm run by the Wholesale Co-operative Society. Their farming of some thousands of acres for many years, having a market at their door for their produce, resulted a few months ago in such losses that the whole farm had to be put up to auction, to the great disturbance of the local population.
Mr. HAYCOCK: If it was put up to auction after great losses had been incurred, was any price obtained for the land?
Captain CAZALET: I understand that, when it was first put up, it did not reach the reserve. We cannot pursue it at the moment, but I can give the hon. Member all the details afterwards.
Mr. HAYCOCK: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not taken my point. If land is losing money, it should have no price at all. I should be glad to know where land is being given away.
The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise.
Captain CAZALET: On another occasion, I shall be glad to deal with that point. In regard to demonstration farms, in answer to a question that I addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, he informed me that there were in England alone some 41 demonstration farms of one kind or another throughout the length and breadth of the countryside. I do not believe it is necessary at present largely to increase that number. I believe there is no farmer who desires to get good practical scientific information, either from the representative of the county council or directly from the Board of Agriculture, who cannot get it and, if it is necessary in certain parts of the country to introduce a demonstration farm for the benefit of the surrounding farmers, it is a very bold prophecy on the part of the Minister that he can make it a commercially paying proposition.
May I make one general observation? We have heard remarks during the debate as to the efficiency of the farmer. When prices were good, in the War time or just afterwards, we heard no mention of the inefficiency of the farmer. To-day we hear—and it may be true—that farmers find it difficult to combine and cooperate and perhaps, like other industries, they must reduce their overhead expenses. But, when we hear hon. Members speaking about the cotton, steel and coal industries, do not they bring against them exactly the same facts and arguments that they bring to-day against the farming community? If the farmers had anything like the degree of protection which the coal industry has to-day, that is, a minimum price, they would be among the most prosperous industries of the country.
I will pass to the question of smallholdings which is dealt with in Part II of the Bill. If you are going to offer something free, in addition to providing some money, it is not unlikely that you will have a large number of people coming

377
forward desiring to avail themselves of the offer. That is the situation to-day. There are at least four questions upon which you have to be certain before you embark upon a large-scale spending of public money on smallholdings. First of all, where are you to get this land? It has been admitted that it must be good land. There is not much good land, land which is easily developed, easily cultivated and likely to bring in a good profit that is not already held by people who are to-day making the best use of it. Secondly, who are to get this land? We have heard one hon. Member say that it does not matter whether the applicants have any experience and that it is brains which count. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Rosbotham) said that education did not matter, and that so long as you have strong arms you can make your allotments pay. The statistics which the Minister produced as to the results of smallholdings in the past were more encouraging and satisfactory than I anticipated. Here is the point: Is the Minister going to give the first choice to the agricultural labourers?
The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which should be raised on the Committee stage of the Bill, and not on this Resolution.
Captain CAZALET: I will go on to the next point. I wonder whether hon. Members who talk glibly about prosperous and successful smallholders in this country really understand what a very capricious and hard taskmaster agriculture really is. Are our people prepared to endure or to enjoy, whichever you like, the same conditions of life as the small peasant proprietors in Europe? I do not believe that many of them are prepared to do so, and that is one of the reasons why I have grave doubts as to the advisability of launching into a scheme of capital expenditure on smallholdings. Lastly, and this seems to many of us on this side of the House really to be the most vital point, are you going, by one means or another, to guarantee to your smallholder a market and a price for the commodity which he is producing?
The CHAIRMAN: Again I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member. We are now dealing with ques-
378
tions of finance, and not with questions relating to prices of commodities.
Captain CAZALET: With great respect, I bow to your Ruling, but I am only answering points which have been made by other speakers this evening. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk gave us a long list of prices of commodities, and I am introducing this particular point only to rebut what be has said. In my own constituency there are smallholders who hitherto have been enjoying if not a really profitable career, a reasonably successful career in producing milk. With what are they faced to-day Last year they were selling milk at is. ld. and to-day they are lucky if they can sell it, in many cases, for 5d.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave figures to prove that the expenses indicated in the Money Resolution were worth while, and am I to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving his figures against that view?
Captain CAZALET: Yes, Sir, I am giving them to show how much uncertainty there is in this matter. Other Hon. Members freely quoted figures, and I was desirous of quoting other figures. These are actual figures concerning the operations of smallholders in my district. I am quoting them in support of the opinion on these benches that it is a dangerous thing to put inexperienced people on to smallholdings.
Mr. DUNCAN: Nobody disputes that.
Captain CAZALET: Mr. Young asked me a question, and I was merely answering it. In my county of Kent, where there arc smallholdings, blackcurrants this year were selling at only a penny, while damsons were left on the trees. You may encourage as many smallholders as you like to settle on the land, and you may give land free and endow them in the manner indicated in this Money Resolution, and even increase the £50 to 100 a year, but I am certain, unless you give them a definite market and a security for their produce, that within a certain period of time, unless they are really experienced and exceptional people, they will probably meet with financial failure, and will not bless you for having put them on the land.

379
I apologise for having been out of order on various occasions. We on these benches feel that if the results which have been prophesied by hon. Members opposite as a result of granting this money come true, we shall be the first to rejoice, but I regard the expenditure of much of this money as unnecessary. Some of the expenditure is an entire waste of money and a pure extravagance which will bring no return. The contribution towards allotments will, I think, receive general consent from all parts of the Committee, but the contribution of an unlimied amount to smallholdings may be admirable in sentiment, though I believe it to be absolutely useless in practice, unless you give a guarantee and a security which we know that this Government will not give.
Mr. PERRY: In considering this Money Resolution, I should like to join issue with one or two hon. Members opposite in regard to the principle which this Resolution will be encouraging. First of all, in regard to large-scale demonstration farms, there is a strong body of opinion in this country which has declared that it is not possible for agriculturists of this country to compete successfully with Canada, the Argentine and the other wheat-producing countries as long as the conditions in this country remain associated with the development of the small unit farm. When we hear quoted in this House figures to the effect that only 5 per cent. of our agricultural products relate to wheat, it is only fair to consider that the Money Resolution which we are now discussing in Committee is an effort to provide for the agricultural industry of this country some means whereby the percentage of wheat production can be increased to a much higher proportion. I am advised by those in the industry who know best that if our agricultural industry is to be brought back to a period of prosperity, it can be' done only by wheat-producing as the foundation of the agricultural industry. We are told that the development of large-scale demonstration farms, the development of the smallholding arrangements, and the cultivation of more allotment societies can help in that direction.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet)
380
and also the right hon. Member the ex-Minister of Agriculture, referred to our own experience in co-operative farming. My hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Haycock) put a very pertinent question to my hon. and gallant Friend. He suggested that when our farms were put up for auction, if the outlook had been so depressing those farms would not have found a purchaser. Experience has proved that there are usually, even in these days, plenty of applicants for farms when they are put up for auction
Captain GUNSTON: Will the hon. Member explain why the co-operative people sold their farms, if they could not make a profit on them?
The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise.
Mr. PERRY: I shall be delighted to show the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) the figures, later, but I am asked to finish my remarks in 10 minutes, in order to keep to the usual arrangement. Our experience has been such that we believe that large-scale demonstration farms will be just as useful and just as productive in encouraging the agricultural industry in this country as any experiments. It must be a revelation to many hon. Members on this side of the House that, for the first time in my experience, at any rate, hon. Members opposite are objecting to money being granted in support of agricultural interests in this country. That is a new experience for us. The methods of farming in this country, the traditions of our farmers, the climatic conditions, the intensive system of cultivation have to be reconsidered and remoulded if we are to compete with other countries where farming is carried on on a large scale.
I welcome this Bill and the Money Resolution which accompanies it as a great step forward in that direction. There is not one hon. Member who has had experience of farming institutes in our counties but will pay a willing tribute to the value of the work done by those institutes, and to the real practical help that they have given to the farmers in the counties. Under this Resolution the encouragement of large-scale demonstration farms will help considerably in that. respect.

381
One of the most pertinent criticisms against the Money Resolution has been that we are going to increase the army of officials. I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to try to be logical and reasonable. You cannot for ever be commending the Civil Service, you cannot for ever he paying tribute to their efficiency and to the good work they do, and then on a Resolution of this kind put forward the argument against it that it means an increase of those very efficient officials. Another part of the Bill which the Money Resolution makes possible is an increase of allotments and smallholdings. There is not a county in this country where there are not numbers of ex-service men who were brought up on the land and have had practical experience of the land who would not welcome the opportunity of being given smallholdings under this Bill. I hope the Committee will give support to the Money Resolution, believing that this Bill is the first step in an agricultural policy which will help in bringing back prosperity to agriculture, and thereby help to make this land of ours a better land than it is to-day.
Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Of all the speeches that have been delivered on this Resolution and on the Second Reading of the Bill, perhaps the most eloquent passage was in the speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he made an impassioned appeal for unity in support of the Bill, and the carrying of it through with determination and ruthlessness. He followed up that appeal by another, equally impassioned, namely, that in order to make sure that the Bill should be carried through as decisively and quickly as possible, the Committee Stage should he taken on the Floor of the House. The Committee has seen the answer that was given to that appeal. It does not encourage us, to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal when we consider the way in which his second appeal was received by a Government to which he had just promised his unqualified support, and to which he showed his faithfulness by following them into the Lobby in order to vote down a proposal—
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with a matter which
382
arises on the Bill and not on this Money Resolution.
Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I was going to refer to that appeal in a way which would be in order under your Ruling with regard to the money that is to be voted under this Financial Resolution. There are many headings in the Financial Resolution and a large number of objects in the Bill for which money is sought under this Resolution. The difficulty which many of us have in giving a united support to the Bill is that, while there may be one point or another for which we should be glad to vote money there are others which we think useless and, indeed, positively harmful and wasteful. There is one point on which I think the concensus of opinion among all parties in the Committee is that the object is a good one which we should all be glad to support and, indeed, glad to see a Measure passed which would facilitate its progress; and that is the question of allotments. That is a matter on which there is I think an unanimous opinion on all sides of the Committee. I have had some experience in regard to miners' allotments and I know how they have helped those miners who have been unemployed to keep mind and body fit during the period of unemployment and have made it possible for them to take on work when opportunity offered.
As there has been an appeal for unity, I throw out this suggestion. If there is one point in the Bill on which Members on all sides of the Committee set store why mix it up with others in regard to which there is a difference of opinion? If the Government are anxious to secure unity I suggest that they should separate the one provision in the Bill on which there is a concensus of opinion and let the rest of the Bill he subject to the criticisms which a contentions Measure usually invokes. When we leave the question of allotments we part company for the rest of the Bill. We do not believe that large farms are a good thing from the agricultural point of view; certainly they are a bad thing from the unemployment point of view. The course of the debate in regard to smallholdings has been most interesting.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland asked for a general criticism of the Measure. Let me deal with the general question. The speech made by the right

383
hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was exceedingly interesting. He was in a very happy position. He had no longer to exercise his dexterity in dancing the dialectic tight rope in order to say that he should support a Measure with which he did not agree—
The CHAIRMAN: We are now dealing with the Financial Resolution, not with the Bill.
Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think my remarks are directly associated with the Money Resolution. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs at once proceeded to give whole-hearted support to the Bill and to the need for money under the Financial Resolution. It was the very way in which it was advocated the desirability of granting the money that caused us to be suspicious as to I never heard a scheme described in a way which was so extraordinarily unconvincing. Let me give an idea of what the right hon. Gentleman said. In effect he said: "What matters it how much it costs Suppose that it were to cost £100,000,000 or £200,000,000, why should we not spend it, seeing that we spent thousands of millions during the War?" Is not the very fact that so much money had been previously spent and was now a burden upon the country and upon industry, the more reason and not the least reason why we should be careful at the moment? The right hon. Gentleman said again, in effect, "Why cannot we afford to take 2 per cent. or less than 2 per cent. on the national investment in smallholdings, seeing that landlords look for only 2 per cent, or less for the money that they spend on repairs and improvements of cottages and buildings?" The two things are not comparable at all.
I have spent sums of money, as a landlord, on repairs to cottages and farm buildings. I do not look at the precise interest I get from the money. That expenditure is always looked upon as necessary expenditure on a farming estate, in order that the whole estate can be kept going as a paying concern. It has absolutely no bearing on the question of the financial rectitude of this proposal or the righteousness of spending money on it. Only people who have had experience of smallholdings can realise what are the
384
difficulties regarding finance. I do not know whether you, Mr. Chairman, would allow me, on this Resolution, to recall a statement of the right hon. Gentleman that in his opinion the first necessity is the pursuit of true economy by the State. That statement appeared in the right hon. Gentleman's most recent pamphlet. The use of the word "true" in that connotation always makes me extremely suspicious. It always means economy in some sense other than that which the ordinary business man understands.
Practical experience in this matter has shown that where smallholders have been successful there has always been some more or less special aptitude or suitability. It may have been that a particular district is extraordinarily suitable for smallholdings, or it may be the nature of the ground, or else that the smallholder has been countrybred and knows his business, and that he is working on the land with his wife and his grown-up family. Such a man can make a holding pay. In a few special cases you may get a man transferred direct from the towns who is able to make a holding pay. But those cases are comparatively few and far between. An hon. Member spoke about a tram conductor who wanted to be a smallholder. That is only one of a large number of such cases, and it is perfectly natural that a person employed in a town, who is dissatisfied with his employment, should wish to become his own master. But give such men six months on smallholdings and a very large number would wish to be back again in the town under their old conditions. That is the reason why the history of this small holdings business has shown such chequered results. Unless we want to tempt people into holdings for which they are really unfitted we have to go very carefully in this matter and we cannot risk development at an enormous pace. I ask the Committee to consider whether the expenditure now proposed is justified either from the point of view of agriculture or from that of unemployment. I ask the Committee to look at the problem in its true proportions. Tike first, the question of whether, if this money is going to be spent at all, it is worth spending it in this way.
We have thousands of agricultural labourers out of employment at present.

385
Unemployment is growing in the arable districts to an extent not known before. Some of these men may be eligible for smallholdings. If so, they will be among those who are likely to succeed. But as far as expenditure is concerned it would be infinitely more economic and effective to use the money to stop the flow from the arable districts, instead of allowing arable farms to be put into grass to go out of business altogether or having the staffs employed upon them reduced, which is creating unemployment. The Government by this scheme of smallholdings are trying to empty out the great stagnant pool of unemployment with a teacup, and, all the time, fresh unemployed are falling into it by the bucketful from the arable farms on which, at the present day, agriculture is in the worst position it has been in for generations. That is the position as regards unemployment. To say that the creation of smallholdings will he a real step towards solving unemployment or that the expenditure is justified from that point of view would in my belief be ludicrous, if it were not that the unemployment position is such a tragedy that nothing connected with it can he described as ludicrous.
What is the position from the agricultural point of view? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the Minister ask the Committee to vote this money on the ground that it means the restoration of the countryside. There is nothing to show that within any reasonable time there can be any restoration of the countryside as a result of the application of this money to smallholdings. In our belief, it is a misconception of the way in which the countryside needs restoring. What is more, if the money is misused in this way, it will not be available for restoring the countryside in other ways.
I would ask the Committee, instead of unduly focussing its opinion on smallholdings, to turn for a second to consider what is the state of the countryside at this moment. We have had two of the most disastrous seasons in agriculture that have ever been experienced. The losses are not due to bad farming; they are greatest where the farming is best. In all the great arable districts, the great stretch from the North-East of Scotland right down the East Coast to Lincoln-
386
shire, the losses are greatest—just where the farming is best. It is not due in the least to bad or inefficient farming. [An HON. MEMBER: "Low wages."] It is greatest in the districts where the wages are highest, as in Scotland.
The crux of the whole situation—and here I think the Minister of Agriculture was very misleading—lies, in our opinion, in the grain question. But the Minister himself compared the value for these purposes of wheat at £10,000,000 a. year with the value of the importation of eggs. That is very misleading indeed. You cannot consider wheat alone when you are really thinking of the restoration of the countryside. Wheat and the other grain crops go together, and not only so, hut the grain crops must be considered together with turnips and potatoes, which are one with them and linked together in the ordinary systems of rotation. Not only that, but arable farming is the kind of farming that holds up the shield to all the other kinds of farming, to the sheep farming in the Highlands and to the dairy districts in the West of England. They know very well that 7f arable farming is not prosperous, sheep farming will not do so well. The dairying districts know also that the supply of milk at present is fully adequate and that the moment you get one acre of grain stopped, it means that two or three acres go down to grass, often indifferent grass. They increase the milk supply, which is already adequate, until it is more than is required, and that will destroy the prosperity of the milk industry.
Therefore, I submit that if money has to be spent, that is the situation towards which it should be devoted. What we ought to make up our minds on is this: Are we really going to see that the arable districts are continued at all, or are we really going finally to let them go to destruction? I am not going to transgress the rules of order by discussing a guaranteed price for wheat, but the point is really, How are the Government going to attack the main part of this problem? I would remind them, before I sit down, when they introduced this Bill, which deals with smallholdings, and left the whole central field of agriculture without giving it any thought or providing any money whatever, what their own engagements are, and whether they

387
are justified in asking money for this purpose.
We all know the now celebrated and classic phrase, "Farming must be made to pay." That was not the only engagement that was made. The Prime Minister himself before the last General Election stated that they already had a programme thought out and ready to apply in regard to agriculture, but of that we have had no hint for 18 months past. Not only so, but we were told by the Prime Minister that if he was returned to office, he would at once summon all the parties connected with agriculture to explain his programme to them. None of this has happened. The fact is that the money to be spent on smallholdings is money misused, and, on the other hand, the fact that the Government have done nothing to redeem their pledges with regard to agriculture as a whole makes us feel that we are not going to support the use of money for this purpose when it ought to have been used towards making farming pay and towards upholding the arable industry of the country. In view of the pledges that they have previously given, I regard this Bill as not only an injury, but an insult to the farming community of the country.
Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman who has wound up the debate for the Opposition has done his best, but never since I entered this House have I ever seen the heart knocked out of an Opposition as it has been on this occasion. There has been no hon. Member on the other aide of the Committee who has risen to criticise and curse this Bill but who has admitted that there are some good parts in it. Scarcely two hon. Members have agreed as to what were the good parts. Although we are debating the Money Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman Who spoke last spent the major portion of his speech, not in criticising the expenditure asked for in this Resolution, but in criticising something that is not in the Bill, and could not possibly be in the. Bill, and which has already been announced as the subject of another Bill which is to form part of the Government's policy. I cannot discuss marketing; I cannot under the terms of this Resolution discuss the question of a guaranteed price or whether farming
388
can be made to pay. And the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He knows that this Bill is designed purely to secure the better utilisation of land, and the Money Resolution is to provide the necessary funds for that purpose. That is all there is in the Bill, and the sole purpose for which we are asking the money.
The right hon. Gentleman said, however, that he would deal with smallholdings, and I agree that they are an essential part of the land programme of the Government. He said that, generally speaking, any successes in smallholdings in the past were due to some special aptitude on the part of the smallholder. Where can he get evidence for that statement? The figures at our disposal and at the disposal of his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for Scotland, show that not more than 5 per cent, of the smallholdings placed on the land by the State since 1919, including shell-shocked soldiers and wounded men, and including what I may call without disrespect "misfits" of every description, have proved failures.
Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: At what cost?
Mr. JOHNSTON: I will come to that point in a moment; I can only deal with one point at a time. I am dealing with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that, generally speaking, if a man succeeded as a smallholder, there was some special aptitude on his part or a favourable district, perhaps near a market town. I put it that on the evidence at the disposal of the Department, the experience since 1019 has demonstrated exactly the contrary. The other day I visited a smallholdings scheme just outside Dumfries, and spoke there to smallholders who are paying Income Tax. I have never heard of any business in this country in which there has been such a small proportion of failures during the last 10 years as in the smallholdings promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Secretary of State in Scotland. There have been 5 per cent. failures and 95 per cent. successes.
An hon. Member asked "At what cost"? The Nairne Committee, set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, tells us at what cost. The Chairman of that Committee, who was formerly a

389
Controller of the Bank of England, says the cost of smallholdings in Scotland may be put down at an average of £360 per holder; and 1 presume the Scottish price will be a little higher than the English. But from that £360 there must be deducted the cost of rehousing the holder. Every municipality is building houses for the workers in other industries, and we never dream of debiting to these other industries the cost to the State of building those houses. It is only when we come to agriculture, when we have to build a house for a smallholder, that the charge is placed against the industry; yet I would point out that if a house were not built for him on his holding we should have to build a house for him in some city or village. My submission is that the cost is not £360 but somewhere in the neighbourhood of £250 per holder. Against that, what expenditure on smallholdings and large holdings has the right hon. Gentleman and his friends been prepared to justify? In 1922 they passed an Act of Parliament called the Empire Settlement Act, and it was considered good business, if you please, to vote £3,000,000 of public money to settle unemployed men from this country in the Dominions overseas. That money was voted to settle unemployed men in Western Australia—after a, course of training—at a cost of £1,500 per settler; and to settle them also in Canada or in some other part of the globe. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Quite right too!"] It may be quite right that the State should have voted that money. I am merely making the point that if it is right and proper to vote £3,000,000 for colonising the far places of the Empire it is surely right to vote £1,000,000 to colonise our own country.
Further, have those right hon. Gentlemen who profess to be such straight-laced guardians of the public purse figured out the cost of maintaining an unemployed man, his wife and family in this country? The capital cost would come out at somewhere about 21,500; and that would be to maintain him in idleness. When we come forward with a proposal to do on a somewhat larger scale what has already been proven to be successful by the Nairne Committee and by our own Department—proven to be a financial and economic and a social success—right hon. Gentlemen hold up
390
their hands in horror and say "Imagine the cost." Well, we have imagined the cost. We have seen the cost, economically, in the physical wreckage, and in the social misery, and this Government puts before the House and the country proposals which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, are at any rate an effort, a brave and courageous effort, to settle a larger proportion of our people on the soil, to train them, and to maintain them during training.
In other directions of our policy, which I may not discuss now, we propose to do our best to ensure that they will get a market for their produce. The late Secretary of State for Scotland, whose criticism of the Bill was very hesitant and exceedingly mild in temper, committed himself to the statement that at any rate he was in favour of smallholdings and was prepared to develop the policy of smallholdings, whatever his right hon. Friend beside him might think. That is his profession to-day, and I gladly acknowledge that he, with the experience that he had and the knowledge that his Department gave him, was willing to extend and develop smallholdings. But what did the Government of which he was a member permit him to do? In the year 1924, the year of the Labour Government, 322 new smallholders were settled on the land in Scotland, but the next year under his regime the number fell to 144. It seems to me that the progress of smallholdings in that direction was nothing very much to boast about.
There is little fresh to answer in the discussion that has taken place this afternoon. It is true we arc seeking to spend public money for small holdings. It is true, as the Financial Memorandum says, that we may only expect a return of 2 per cent. or at most 2½ per cent. on our money. Against that policy we have the loss to-day in human wreckage, in the derelict land, in the adverse trade balance, and in the absence of a plentiful supply of fresh produce—a loss in every direction. It is between those two divergent policies that the House must decide to-night. We ask for a bold policy in the recolonisation of our country; the Opposition refuses to permit us to spend money upon it.
Sir PATRICK FORD: The whole crux of the situation is: Can these policies be made to pay under a policy of Free Trade?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 205.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

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

White, H. G.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Thurtle, Ernest

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Tillett, Ben

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Tinker, John Joseph

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Toole, Joseph

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Tout, W. J.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Snell, Harry

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Turner, B.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Vaughan, D. J.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Sorensen, R.

Viant, S. P.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Walkden, A. G.

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Louohb'gh)

Stephen, Campbell

Walker, J.

Wise, E. F.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Wallace, H. W.

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Watkins, F. C.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Strauss, G. R.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

Sullivan, J.

Wellock, Wilfred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Sulton, J. E.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoin)

West, F. R.

Charles Edwards.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Westwood, Joseph

NOES.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Albery, Irving James

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Meller, R. J.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent. Dover)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Mond, Hon. Henry

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Faile, Sir Bertram G.

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

Balniel, Lord

Ferguson, Sir John

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Fielden, E. B.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Beaumont, M. W.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Berry, Sir George

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Betterton, sir Henry B.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Ganzonl, Sir John

Muirhead, A. J.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Bird, Ernest Roy

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

O'Connor, T. J.

Boyce, H, L.

Gower, Sir Robert

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Bracken, B.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

O'Neill, Sir H.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Brass, Captain Sir William

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Briscoe, Richard George

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Brown, Brig., Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Buckingham, Sir H.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Ramsbotham, H.

Butler, R. A.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

Remer, John R.

Campbell, E. T.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Carver, Major W. H.

Hanbury, C.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Cautley, sir Henry S.

Hartington, Marquess of

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Salmon, Major J.

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Horns, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Christie, J. A.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

Savery, S. S.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Simms, Major-General J.

Colman, N. C. D

Iveagh, Countess of

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Colville, Major D. J.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Knox Sir Alfred

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smithers, Waldron

Cranborne, Viscount

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Somerset, Thomas

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Dalrymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfre.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Stuart, Hon. J. (M'oray and Nairn)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

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

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Thomson, Sir F.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Tinne, J. A.

Dixey, A. C.

Margesson, Captain H D.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

394

395

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Train, J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Worthington Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Wayland, Sir William A.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Turton, Robert Hugh

Walls, Sydney R.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl

Sir George Penny.

Wardlaw-Milne, J S.

Womersley, W. J.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday next.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. T. Kennedy.]
Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry to have to trouble the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies so soon after his return from a serious illness, but the matter I wish to raise is, in my opinion, of considerable importance. I gave notice to the Member of the Government who was acting on the Under-Secretary's behalf during his illness. This matter is concerned in some degree with the issue of the Command Paper entitled, "Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa." There is obviously not time to deal with that very important subject to-night. I can only say that this is the first time it has come up in the House of Commons, that the issue of that Paper has caused perturbation to the European population of every colony affected, that that perturbation has been shared by the people of Southern Rhodesia and by the people of the Union, and that unless the situation is handled more tactfully by the Colonial Office in the future than it has been in the past, it is likely to lead to an Imperial crisis of the first magnitude, as hon. Members who read the speech of General Hertzog, the Prime Minister of South Africa, will readily realise.
As far as the particular point, which, relates to Northern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia alone, is concerned, the situation is as follows: I ought perhaps at the outset to say that I have been for many years connected in many ways with Northern Rhodesia, and that I have been asked by the unofficial members of the Legislative Council there to submit their point of view to this House
396
in view of the fact that they do not enjoy a semblance of responsible government. I consider that it is right that their point of view should he put. As a result of the issue of this Command Paper, the unofficial members of the Legislative Council met in conference the unofficial members of the Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia, and the joint conference passed several resolutions strongly condemnatory of the views put forward in the Command Paper. At that conference there was a discussion upon the subject of the amalgamation of the two Rhodesia under the existing constitution of Southern Rhodesia but no actual resolution was passed. Following the conference the unofficial members 0r the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council sent a telegram on the 30th September to the Secretary of State for the Colonies couched, I venture to think, in perfectly proper and respectful terms, asking the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, if and when conditions approximating to those which prevailed in Southern Rhodesia at the time of the granting of self-government to that territory prevailed in Northern Rhodesia, His Majesty's Government would accept proposals for the amalgamation of the two Rhodesias emanating from the elective European representatives of the two countries.
On 3rd November I asked the hon. Gentleman who was representing the Under-Secretary a question in the House as to whether a reply had been sent to that telegram. The hon. Gentleman said that no reply had been sent. I further asked him if an acknowledgement had been sent, but I was unable under the necessary limitation imposed at question time to ascertain whether an acknowledgement had been sent or not. The first specific question I wish to ask the Under-Secretary is whether a reply was sent, when it was sent, and in what terms it was couched. If there was delay in sending, either a reply or an acknowledgement, I am bound to characterise the action of the Government as very discourteous to these elected non-official

397
members. If the hon. Lady knew the feeling there is throughout these countries she would not see any cause for merriment.
Miss WILKINSON: lit was merriment due to the passing of judgment before you knew the facts.
Earl WINTERTON: I want to make this point clear, that, following on the information that this telegram had been sent, the Southern Rhodesian Government, through the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, sent a telegram to the Secretary of State for the Colonies asking whether His Majesty's Government, in the circumstances which had arisen, would agree to a conference in order to discuss this question of amalgamation. On that date, 3rd November, I was informed by the hon. Gentleman who answered for the Under-Secretary, that the Southern Rhodesian Government had been informed that the question could not be decided until the Imperial Conference, and that they would await the receipt of the State Memorandum, which would be sent home by mail by the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, before coming to any decision. That was quite a reasonable attitude to take up, although it seems in all the stronger relief to the curious action of the Government in not sending a detailed reply to the representations of the unofficial members of the Southern Rhodesian Legislative Assembly. My first question, therefore, is, What reply was sent and when was the reply sent?
Secondly, I want to ask the UnderSecretary—and I hope he will give the undertaking—to assure the House that as soon as the Government—and this must be obviously the Cabinet—have had an opportunity of considering the representations sent by the Southern Rhodesian Government, they will make an announcement to the House and the country of what their decision is in the matter. The matter is obviously of great Imperial importance, and I hope that the Government will publish the despatch in a White Paper, with all the relevant information concerning it.
These are the only two questions which I wish to ask, but I would quote words which were used by the Prime Minister of South Africa in connection with the matter, and I would suggest to both sides
398
of the House that the views of the Prime Minister of South Africa in this connection are well worthy of consideration, because they represent the point of view of 1,200,000 Europeans under the British flag in South, Central and East Africa. This is what he said:
"The first point that I wish to emphasise is: South Africa is our fatherland. If justice is to be done to the South African and to the South African native policy, this should never be forgotten. South Africa is, to us, our fatherland. The Europeans in South Africa are no mere temporary sojourners in a strange land—adventurers out to exploit what is not theirs. Our hearts and our hearths are equally abidingly wrapped up in the bosom of South Africa as our fatherland. The second point is that we in South Africa own as valid and honourable a title to our fatherland as any nation in any country."
Does anyone deny that? [Interruption.] Then you deny that the people of the Union of South Africa have any title to their own country.
Mr. BROCKWAY: What about the Africans?
Earl WINTERTON: I am not concerned with the Africans at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have asked a question and I would like to have a reply not from hon. Members on the back benches opposite but from a responsible person on the Socialist benches. Do you deny the claim of General Hertzog? General Hertzog went on to say:
"I do not think therefore, that we can be blamed if we insist upon our country and our civilisation being secured unto us."
Those are the views, not only of General Hertzog, but of his opponents, and everybody under the British flag in the Union of South Africa and in Africa. Despite what is said in this country, the settlers who are affected by this Memorandum have no hostility towards the African races. On the contrary, they know that they must live in amity side by side with them. It is only certain people in this country who suggest that conflict of interest arises. I can only say in conclusion that I think it is a deplorable thing that at a time when it is of the utmost importance, for economic if for no other reasons, that we should be on good terms with Britons in every part of the Empire, the Government should have taken the line which they have taken of publishing a Memorandum which is not couched in

399
language that was very tactful or very proper to use at that particular moment.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I have, in the first place, to thank the Noble Earl for his considerate words at the beginning of his speech. They were characteristic of the generosity of the House of Commons. The Noble Earl has raised some very important issues, and it is very regrettable that the time is so short in which to attempt to do justice to them. He referred first to the question of the Native Policy Memorandum. I would pont out that that is only the application to particular cases of the principles laid down in the 1923 White Paper issued by the Conservative Government of that day. That White Paper, like the Memorandum, was in line with the traditional British policy, which I hope will never be departed from. This policy has been consistently carried out by the Noble Earl's own Government since Northern Rhodesia was taken over in 1924 from the British South Africa Company, and I do not think that any alteration is necessarily involved by the announcement of the present Government's policy. I can understand the Noble Earl in his anxiety to put up as good a case as possible for the views on native policy of the unofficial members of the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council, but let me just give one or two points from the recent Memorandum submitted to the Secretary of State on this subject, which I think will show that it will be very difficult for the Noble Earl to support that for which they stand. They say, for example:
"The British Empire is primarily concerned with the furtherance of the interests of (1) British subjects of British race; and only thereafter with (2) other British subjects, (3) protected races, and (4) the nationals of other countries, in that order."
Another point they make is this:
"The assumption of trusteeship by the Imperial Government is uncalled for and undesirable."
Another point is that the British settlers of Northern Rhodesia do not accept the White Paper of 1923, the one which was issued by the Conservative Government, and they call for a withdrawal or modification of the Native Policy Memorandum, and ask for a conference. I have not time to read the reply, but
400
needless to say no encouragement was given to any suggestion that the policy laid down in our Native Policy Memorandum could be departed from.
Earl WINTERTON: I suppose that the Under-Secretary, as he has quoted from this document, will follow the ordinary procedure of the House, and lay it upon the Table? I must raise that as a point of Order.
Dr. SHIELS: My time is short. The Noble Earl has referred also to the opinion expressed by General Hertzog in regard to several of these matters. This is not the time or the place to deal with the large issues which that raises. I think, however, that the Noble Earl will agree that if South Africa is to take an interest in our native policy there would be grounds for our taking a corresponding interest in their native policy. I say no more than that. In regard to the next point, the question of the future of Northern Rhodesia, I would remind the House that the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia consists of 17 members. Of these 10 are officials of the Government and the remaining seven are unofficial European members. Following the reply of the Secretary of State to that Memorandum to which I have referred, some of these unofficial members, I think the number was five, intimated their desire for immediate amalgamation of Northern with Southern Rhodesia. On the 30th September they sent a message through the Governor to the Secretary of State asking that amalgamation should be considered and whether representations would be considered from a joint body of unofficial members. I regret that this message was not, for some reason, acknowledged at once. The Governor had to be consulted before a reply could be sent, but a preliminary acknowledgment should have been sent. I regret this oversight very much. A reply was sent on 14th November to the effect that the reply had been delayed pending the receipt of the Governor's observations, and that these; had now been received. They were also informed that a communication from the Government of Southern Rhodesia to His Majesty's Government had been received and was under consideration. It was pointed out to them, with regard to the views of any joint body, that we could

401
only receive representations through the Governor of Northern Rhodesia from persons residing in the Protectorate. In regard to Southern Rhodesia, the proposal of the Governor—
Earl WINTERTON: What does the hon. Gentleman mean exactly by "persons representing the Protectorate'? Does he mean representing constituencies, or elected by the Assembly?
Dr. SHIELS: The idea was that we should receive representations from a joint body consisting of unofficial members from Northern Rhodesia with unofficial members from Southern Rhodesia. The proposal of the Government of Southern Rhodesia to His Majesty's Government was received on the 2nd October. It was suggested that the Conference should discuss the possibility of the amalgamation of Northern with Southern Rhodesia. The Colonial Government was informed by the Secretary of State far Dominion Affairs on 17th October that their proposal would be considered as soon as possible. As the Noble Lord has said, the Imperial Conference has taken up a. great deal of the time of the Dominions Office, and it has not been possible to deal with the matter. Besides, I would remind him that probably, after the Dominions Office has considered it, joint consultations with other Departments will be necessary, and probably higher authority later on will have to be consulted.
I think it is obvious that it would not be fair to convene a conference unless His Majesty's Government felt that they could take part in. such a conference with some prospect of agreement. If a conference were held doubtless it would be a conference of Governments who would decide their own representation. I can assure the Noble Lord that no avoidable delay will take place in giving full con-
402
sideration to the representations which have been made, but I cannot say that there is any very great urgency in the matter. There are very large and important questions with many ramifications involving consideration both political and economic, and we must proceed with caution and care. I am sure the Noble Earl will agree that that is so. I would have been very glad to have dealt more fully with these matters, but it has not been possible. I must say, however, that if the elected members of Northern Rhodesia persist in their opposition to this White Paper and maintain their policy, an example of which I have given, I certainly will do all I can to make their efforts of no avail, and I should hope and expect to receive the Noble Earl's assistance.
Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: In the minute remaining before the House adjourns, may t call attention to the statement of the hon. Gentleman when he mentioned the question of the native policy and the White Paper, with regard to the question described as paramountcy? He suggested that in future it might be necessary to interfere with labour policy in the Union of South Africa and. I wish to enter a caveat.
Dr. SHIELS: I must point out that I never said that.
Sir H. CROFT: I am very glad to hear it. Certainly I and those around me thought that that was his statement. I want to say that we can make no greater blunder in this 'House than to fail to realise that you cannot alter the position in regard to the natives in the eastern territories of Africa without taking into consultation the people of the Union of South Africa.
It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS (SUPPLY).
  TEACHERS (SUPPLY).
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL.
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL.
  TEACHERS (UNIVERSITY DEGREES).
  TEACHERS (UNIVERSITY DEGREES).
POST OFFICE.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  AIR MAILS.
  AIR MAILS.
  FACSIMILE TELEGRAPHY.
  FACSIMILE TELEGRAPHY.
  AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES, LONDON.
  AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES, LONDON.
  POSTAL DELIVERIES, WIRRAL AREA.
  POSTAL DELIVERIES, WIRRAL AREA.
  RURAL TELEPHONES.
  RURAL TELEPHONES.
  TELEPHONE ACCOUNTS.
  TELEPHONE ACCOUNTS.
  ACTING HEAD POSTMAN, SOUTHAMPTON.
  ACTING HEAD POSTMAN, SOUTHAMPTON.
  PART-TIME POSTMEN AND POSTWOMEN.
  PART-TIME POSTMEN AND POSTWOMEN.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP-VENDING MACHINES.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP-VENDING MACHINES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CADET ORGANISATIONS.
  CADET ORGANISATIONS.
  MARRIED QUARTERS, WOOLWICH DISTRICT.
  MARRIED QUARTERS, WOOLWICH DISTRICT.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WOMEN.
  WOMEN.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  RELIEF SCHEMES.
  WORK SCHEMES, WALES.
  WORK SCHEMES, WALES.
  LYME PITS, HAYDOCK (EXPLOSION).
  LYME PITS, HAYDOCK (EXPLOSION).
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY, WEST HIDING.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY, WEST HIDING.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  ACCIDENTS.
  ACCIDENTS.
  LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
  LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
  DETECTOR LAMP.
  DETECTOR LAMP.
  INDUSTRIAL BOARD.
  INDUSTRIAL BOARD.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  MELTALIFEROUS MINING INDUSTRIES.
  MELTALIFEROUS MINING INDUSTRIES.
  RUSSIA (DUMPLNG).
  RUSSIA (DUMPLNG).
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGATION.
  OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGATION.
  INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.
  INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.
  INSURANCE FACILITIES (STATE AID).
  INSURANCE FACILITIES (STATE AID).
  EMIGRATION.
  EMIGRATION.
  CUNARD (INSURANCE) AGREEMENT.
  CUNARD (INSURANCE) AGREEMENT.
INDIA.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  TARIFFS.
  TARIFFS.
SCOTLLAND
  ANIMAL DISEASES.
  ANIMAL DISEASES.
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
  LOCAL RATES.
  LOCAL RATES.
  CASUAL WARD, HORNBY.
  CASUAL WARD, HORNBY.
  FISHING FLEETS(CONDITION).
  FISHING FLEETS(CONDITION).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  DISARMAMENT.
  DISARMAMENT.
  CONVENTION ON FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
  CONVENTION ON FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION (PADDINGTON ESTATE).
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION (PADDINGTON ESTATE).
  ELECTORAL LAW.
  ELECTORAL LAW.
  PAUPER LUNATIC, BROADMOOR.
  PAUPER LUNATIC, BROADMOOR.
  DOMINION AND COLONIAL TOURS (PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES).
  DOMINION AND COLONIAL TOURS (PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  STAFFS (COSTS).
  STAFFS (COSTS).
  CHIEF REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (STAFF).
  CHIEF REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (STAFF).
  FOOD (DUTIES).
  FOOD (DUTIES).
  STATE TRADING.
  STATE TRADING.
  LAND REGISTRATION.
  LAND REGISTRATION.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANOELLOR on the Woolsack.
EAST AFRICA.
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Motion of the House of Lords of November 12, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa (Cmd. 3234 and Cmd. 3378), together with the statement of the conclusions of His Majesty's Government (Cmd. 3574), and to report thereon.

MERCANTILE SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF LIVERPOOL'S PETITION.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I desire to present a Petition against Clause 41 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Bill, on behalf of the Mercantile Service Association of Liverpool.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

FRASERBURGH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, perhaps before starting I might ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, what clause of this Bill is referred to in the Petition
182
that he presented. There is no Clause 41 in the Bill. The clauses only run as far as Clause 31.
EARL HOWE: It is the clause relating to helm orders.
EARL STANHOPE: Clause 22.
LORD PARMOOR: This might appear to be rather a formidable Bill so far as its bulk is concerned, but for this stage it really can be confined within a narrow compass. The position generally is this. A Convention dealing with safety of life at sea has been unanimously agreed to Joy the plenipotentiaries appointed by a large number of countries. Our plenipotentiaries were appointed by the late Government, and I only say that to make it clear that we, of course, consider it our duty and our obligation to carry on a scheme of this kind, initiated by the late Government, and in favour of which their plenipotentiaries have unanimously reported. The necessity for legislation is that the Convention may be ratified. Your Lordships know that is often the case. Before ratification we want some amendment in our law in order that we may carry out faithfully and as a debt of honour the obligations which we undertake when we ratify a Convention. The question seems to me to he whether the Bill in its preliminary clauses does or does not make a suitable provision, such as should be made as regards our merchant shipping law, before ratification should he given to a Convention of this character. That is more or less a simple issue. We cannot alter the terms of the Convention without upsetting it. I imagine that no one thinks that that can be done, although I will deal in a moment with what is called the "helm orders" point.
There can be no body in the world, I think, better than a Committee of this House to deal with the drafting points which may arise on this Bill. The drafting points which will, or can, arise concern the question whether the terms of the Bill adequately change or alter the merchant shipping law, and confer new powers so that if the Convention is ratified we can ensure that it will be carried out faithfully and to the full. In order that your Lordships may know what the purpose of the Bill is, perhaps I may read out a few words from the Title. It is "for the purpose of giving

183
effect to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on the thirty-first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine." It was signed then. It will come into operation, if sufficient ratifications are obtained, of which I think there is no doubt, in July of next year. This country, which, naturally from its naval position and history, has taken the lead in this matter—I would almost say has fathered the work of this Convention—is anxious that before the time for ratifying comes, all legislation should be obtained, so that we can go forward as quickly as possible with the ratification itself.
If your Lordships will look at the form of the Bill and the arrangement of the clauses, I think they will be found sufficiently to show what the various subject matters are. I certainly do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any details at this stage, although I will refer to what is known as the helm order. Our intention in all these matters is to bring our law into harmony with the provisions of the Convention and if we have not done that we shall be most glad to hear any criticism on the form of our drafting. In fact we should welcome, as I am sure your Lordships would if you were sitting on this side of the House, any suggestions from members of your Lordships' House, many of whom have expert knowledge of the subject, which would amend and make more simple or more understandable the form of the drafting which we are proposing. I may say that we are desirous of getting any assistance we can upon that point. From my knowledge of what has gone on, I am aware that this has been a matter of great care and anxiety to the particular Departments concerned. No one who has any knowledge of drafting will say that the drafting may not be improved, and if by talking to one another or by means of Amendments put on the Paper it can be shown that in the opinion of the House such Amendments are improvements, we shall not resist beyond giving to the best of our ability the reasons for the form which the Bill has at present.
If your Lordships will look at the subjects dealt with by the Bill, you will see how important they are, particularly to a country like ours, which depends so much on the character and quality of its carrying trade and its very large pas-
184
senger traffic. Our object is in the main to bring other countries up to our level. I do not say that is the only matter, but in substance it is, and that is what we ought to do in these International Conventions. Seeing that we occupy such a position in regard to naval matters and the carrying trade, we desire to give the advantage of our experience to others. In the main, no doubt, this Convention has embodied our views on a large number of points.
First of all in Part I there is the method of construction and equipment. I need not go into details, but everyone, I suppose, will admit that it is well on these topics for an International Convention to be framed on the best existing practice as to what the intention is. Then there is a clause dealing with lifesaving appliances—with the number of boats and other life-saving apparatus. The alteration of ships and additional surveys are dealt with next; that is to say surveys which can be accepted as between the countries which are parties to this Convention, in order not to have separate surveys in each of them, so that one country can accept a survey which has been made by any other. Then there are provisions as to wireless telegraphy. There has been enormous progress in wireless telegraphy. After the loss of the "Titanic" this question of a Convention on lifesaving apparatus at sea was first considered. The War intervened and that Convention was never really put into operation. But it is remarkable as between that date and the present, if you look at the terms proposed then and those proposed in this Convention, what an enormous advance wireless telegraphy has made. Under this Bill and Convention, though I do not want to put it too high, it is provided that practically every large ship at any rate should have wireless equipment. Not only that, but that they should have someone on the watch for wireless messages from other ships, with special provision as regards the direction in which help may be desired. That is the second heading in Part I of the Bill from which I am reading.
Then there is a clause containing provisions for the issue of safety certificates. It is suggested that the certificates proposed are rather more than may be necessary. That, of course, is a matter

185
for consideration; but they are on the safe side in providing that such certificates as are required by the Convention shall in fact be used at any rate in our ships and, we hope, in all other ships of countries that have joined in the Convention.
Part II contains provisions as to ships of other countries to which the Convention applies with regard to accepting certificates. Certainly, prima facie, they have agreed to accept them upon the terms of the Convention, so that they are all on the same level and under the same conditions. Then in Part III there are all the provisions in regard to water-tight doors. A great many of these matters are very technical, but they have been very carefully considered.
I should like to say a word on Clause 22, which is concerned with the method of giving the helm orders. It is in connection with that, I think, that notice was given by a noble Lord opposite that he wished to make certain objections. Therefore I should like to state at greater length, and I think it would be convenient now, how this matter stands, so that there may be no doubt afterwards as to what our view really is. Article 41 of the Convention deals with this matter of helm orders, and Clause 22 of the Bill confirms it. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has deposited a Bill, which I cannot at present refer to as a Bill, because it has not been read a second time. I do not propose to refer to it as a Bill but I can refer to it as a document. I understand that at some time in the future—I do not know what the future may be—he will propose to bring forward this document as a Bill for Second Reading. This document comes from the shipowners and the shipping federations and people of that sort, and has, I understand, a helm order provision in exactly the same terms as are to be found in the Bill before the House. Your Lordships will find that in the document the same words are used as in this Bill.
I will read from the document which comes from the shipowners and people interested from that side, and if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see it is practically in the same terms. It reads: —
186
"No person on any British ship registered in the United Kingdom shall give a helm order containing the word 'starboard' or 'right' or any equivalent of 'starboard' or 'right' unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the right, or give a helm order containing the word 'port' 'left' or any equivalent of port or left unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the left."
Therefore, it is the same principle as in the Bill which the Government brings forward.
I think I can explain readily why that is so. It is convenient to have it crystallised in that form. Before this Bill was drafted—I do not know what the date was, whether it was in the time of the present Government or its predecessors—there was a meeting of the associations representing masters and navigating officers and pilots at Trinity House. The date was shortly before the International Conference opened. This Conference was attended by representatives of the Admiralty and of the Board of Trade. There was a full discussion as to whether this change in the form of helm order was desirable or not. At the International Conference there was a reluctance on the part of some British seamen to change, a misgiving being felt as to possible danger, but there was a strong feeling in favour of helm orders being made international and on the basis of the direct system. After all it is only calling the right the right, and the left the left, and the British delegates felt bound to agree to that unanimously. The plenipotentiaries appointed by the late Government were headed by Sir Norman Hill, and the decision of the Conference is embodied in Article 41. That is the Article to which the noble Lord referred when he very kindly gave me notice before the commencement of this discussion.
The English captains refused the suggestion that what the captains of other countries had done successfully could mean any danger if carried out by them. The suggestion was that you might unconsciously do the wrong thing, because formerly you would call right left and left right and now you would call left left, and right right. I may say that it was inevitable that this matter should be settled in the Convention itself. Therefore, we have taken every step, or the Government who preceded us have

187
done so—I am not quite sure which—to ascertain by meetings at Trinity House what the feeling in this country was, and we have ascertained that it was in the direction of international arrangement. It was further agreed unanimously at the Conference by all the British plenipotentiaries that the direction should be one of simplicity by calling right right, and left left. That is the provision which stands in the Bill at the present time.
LORD DANESFORT: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to ask who appointed the British delegates to this International Conference?
LORD PARMOOR: The late Government appointed them. I asked that question myself. I think that any Government in a matter of this kind would desire to appoint as powerful and as trustworthy a body as could be got, in order to deal with a great international question such as that of safety of life at sea. I assume that substantially the same people would have been appointed whatever Government happened to be in power. A clause in the document which has been deposited by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is in precisely the same terms. I thought at one time that I should have to trouble your Lordships at greater length upon this subject, but when I found that in addition to all the evidence being in favour of this alteration, the document, which I understand came from another source and not from the Government, itself included the same provision, it appeared to me that that settled the matter once for all. No one can suppose after that that the Convention can be altered or any change can be made.
As regards what I may call the supplementary matters dealt with—the countries to which the Convention applies and questions of that kind—I do not think anything can possibly arise on the Second Reading. Upon all these matters I ask for the assistance of the House. I agree that when we come to the Committee stage improvements in drafting may be possible. We are ready at any rate to consider any suggestions that may be made, and we shall welcome them, and if, before the Committee stage is reached—we can fix it for a late date, if necessary—there is any desire to have communication with us, if application is
188
made through the recognised sources or to myself we shall be most glad to have assistance. I am sure it will be assistance that we shall get from noble Lords on the other side of the House in enabling us to put this International Convention into the best possible form.
I do not think there is anything else that arises at this stage, but there is a Motion on the Paper in the name of Lord Stanhope about referring this Bill to a Joint Committee. That will not arise until after the Second Reading has been passed, but it is customary to refer to it, and I desire to acknowledge the courtesy with which the noble Earl gave me notice of it. Suppose I am right in saying that we are dealing really with a question of drafting, I say that the House itself is undoubtedly the most capable body you could find for revising a mixed matter of naval technique and marine law. We shall be able to deal with it in this House, and I venture to suggest that it is not advisable for a question of that kind to be referred to a Committee such as is suggested. There will be no political questions involved. If that were so, I agree that it might be convenient to refer it to such a Committee; but does any one assume for a moment you would get the same power and capacity for dealing with these drafting and legal questions in a Joint Committee as you would get in Committee in this House? I have always taken a pride in this House, and certainly in regard to Committee points of this kind there is no other body which can bring to bear the same power and the same capacity and the same good will.
We are not dealing here with political issues, but we are dealing with a question on which, I think, we might all agree to do the best we can to put in the best form a Bill for bringing into effect this international Convention, which has largely been constructed on our initiative, in the sense that we have been the leading partners, but which has been assented to by the other twenty-nine countries who were represented by their plenipotentiaries. There is only one other matter with which I want to deal. We want to get this Bill as soon as we can, because July, 1931, is the last date for ratification. We want to ratify before that date in order to keep our position

189
as pioneers of this movement. There is a further reason for ratifying before that date, because it is convenient for ship owners and all persons interested in this matter to know exactly how they stand in a matter of this kind. I hope, therefore, you will accord this Bill a Second Reading. At the same time I want to state most distinctly, that so far as drafting Amendments of a useful kind can be proposed we shall be prepared to consider them. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, you will have observed that I have placed on the Order Paper a Motion that this Bill should go before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I want to make it quite clear that I have put that Motion on the Paper in no sense of opposition to the acceptance of the 1929 Convention. So far from that being the case I have ventured to present to your Lordships' House another Bill on the same subject, covering wider ground than the Bill which His Majesty's Government have presented and, as I believe, going in the right direction to secure full and complete ratification, whereas in my view the Government Bill does not do that. If your Lordships will refer to the Bill which the noble and learned Lord has just presented you will find a phrase recurring throughout the Bill. It appears for the first time in Clause 2, on page 2, line 33. Rules and Regulations are to be made by the Board of Trade
"as appear to the Board to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the following provisions of the Convention."
I put this to the noble and learned Lord opposite. Suppose, in the course of the discussion on the Naval Treaty last year, I had suggested that we should put in a clause allowing the Board of Admiralty to give effect to the provisions of that Treaty only so far as appeared to them reasonable: what would the noble and learned Lord have said? At the least, I think, he would have said: "You are not giving full ratification to the Treaty, and other nations will say that England is keeping power in her hands to accept the Treaty just as far as she pleases and to leave the rest of it out." I think he might even have gone so far as to say that it was an
190
attempt to destroy the Naval Treaty. Perhaps I am not so bellicose as the noble and learned Lord opposite. I am not going to make that charge against him in regard to this Convention. I am sure that when he considers the position he will agree that if you are going to take out that phrase to which I have referred something more than redrafting will be necessary. You will find that the Bill will really have to be recast. There will have to be a number of operative clauses in the Bill giving effect to the Convention, instead of a phrase being put in simply providing for the making of rules and regulations which are necessary to bring the Convention into effect. Rules and regulations will have to be made effective only so far as the Convention goes and no further. In the Bill which I presented to your Lordships' House last week, and which I hope will be in the hands of your Lordships to-night or to-morrow morning—
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We have got it now.
EARL STANHOPE: It is in the Bill Office, and it will be circulated to-night. We have put in that Bill a phrase which I think will overcome that objection. Therefore, from that point of view alone, I feel that this Bill will require more detailed examination than the House is likely to wish to give it. This also may be said. The Convention lays down only the minimum rules which are considered necessary for the safety of ships at sea, and this country might desire to go somewhat further. The Board of Trade might feel that it might go somewhat beyond what has been agreed to by other Powers. I have received a letter from Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond, who was Chairman of the Convention in 1929, and he has allowed me to read to your Lordships such parts of that letter as might be useful.
LORD PARMOOR: Do you mean the Convention that reported in 1929?
EARL STANHOPE: The Convention that reported in 1929: the one that appears in the noble and learned Lord's Bill. Sir Herbert Richmond writes:—
"Throughout our discussion it was recognised by all delegations that safety at sea could only be effectively secured by agreeing to, and laying down, common standards for all ships under all flags. If any nation

191
attempted to deal with the thing sectionally, by imposing obligations upon its ships which were not imposed upon others, the effect in the long run could only be to drive those ships off the sea."
He goes on to say:
"… it seems to me important … that the Bill should be framed in such a manner as to require the Board of Trade to impose the obligations of the Convention equally on all ships, British and foreign alike; and, as regards those matters dealt with in the Convention, it should not be possible for the British Government to legislate for British ships in excess of the Convention. Furthermore, that this should not depend upon the discretion or opinion of the Board of Trade but upon the clear direction of Parliament."
That is what the Bill does not do. I fear that when foreign nations realise the form in which this Bill is presented to your Lordships they may say that the 1929 Convention is simply being used as a jumping-off place for further demands, and they, having agreed in some cases with great reluctance to accept the terms which appear in this Convention, would not be prepared to ratify the Convention if they felt that it was only a jumping-off place for a further extension of the duties which are laid upon surveyors of ships.
Of course, the truth really is that when you go to an International Convention every nation has to give up a certain amount of its freedom of action. I think the noble and learned Lord opposite would be the first to agree that that is so. It seems to me that the Board of Trade perhaps has not quite realised what an International Convention means in that respect. It ceases to be a free agent to make rules and regulations and it becomes an agent to carry out an International Convention—that and no more. Similarly, in regard to the form of the Convention. I think the noble and learned Lord said that the Convention had to be taken as a whole. I entirely agree with him. There were cases in which foreign countries—I do not wish, of course, to specify which—found it very difficult to come up to the high standard that we and some other nations desired. On the other hand, we felt that it was incumbent upon us to try to meet them in order to obtain agreement to the really important advance that was being made in regard to the safety of ships at sea.
I refer particularly to helm orders. If we had been left to ourselves, I think it is very probable that no change would
192
have been made in helm orders. We are a very conservative people, and—the noble and learned Lord smiles, but it is quite true, as he will find at the next Election—apart from that, the most conservative part of the country is probably composed of those whose life depends upon the sea. Therefore I think it is very likely that we should not have made a change in helm orders unless it was well worth our while to agree to that change in order to obtain agreement on other matters that appear in that Convention. I know that it has been said that there is general feeling among masters, officers and crew that the present helm orders should stand. I am told that this is not the case. Most of the older men disapprove of the change, but many of the younger men do not disapprove and would like to see the change brought into operation.
That is not surprising. I have here a report which appeared in Lloyds' List of November 7 on the stranding of a German ship on September 23. What happened was this. When the light-buoy No. 8 was on the port side of the ship, the pilot gave the order "starboard," and a minute or so later the look-out reported breakers ahead. The pilot then gave the order "port," but it was too late and the vessel struck at 1.20 a.m. She was floated afterwards with the assistance of tugs, and with no loss of life. The Court, however, found that the stranding was due to the pilot having confused the helm orders, the report to the Court being that the pilot, a Belgian, had stated that he had been used to British vessels and gave the order "starboard" by mistake, his intention being that the vessel should go to port. In order words, he gave the order in the indirect sense and the German helmsman, as was the custom of his country, treated it in the direct sense.
Exactly the same thing might have happened in the waters under the Port of London. With a British pilot in charge of a German ship, you might have the helm order given in the indirect sense, as the habit is, and the German helmsman might treat it the other way, so that you might have a collision, possibly with loss of life. As your Lordships will see, the present system is not a safe system, and therefore it is not, perhaps, surprising that our representatives—incidentally

193
they were drawn from all sorts of people whose life is connected with the sea; shipbuilders, owners, ship-designers, masters, officers and men representative of the Seamen's Union and other bodies—willingly agreed to this change in the helm orders. The Convention of 1929, in addition to dealing with helm orders, dealt, as your Lordships know, with the sub-division of the ship, with life-saving appliances and, perhaps more important than all, with the installation of wireless apparatus and with the obligation to keep a sufficient watch by a wireless operator or to instal an automatic alarm giving a signal when the ship is called up.
That is not the whole story, for that Convention did not cover the whole of the ground of safety of life at sea. The Convention of 1929 was followed by pother Convention in 1930, which completed, so far as it is humanly possible to complete, the provisions for safety of life at sea. The Convention of 1930 dealt with the enforcement of load line rules in every port and the protection of deck openings—that is to say, the covering of hatchways. Those are two matters of great importance, and very great value is attached to them by masters, officers and men who sail the seas. I believe, and I think that your Lordships will agree, that if you put the Conventions of 1929 and 1930 together you not only get a combined whole but you minimise the opposition that you might find to such changes as those in regard to helm orders. In other words, you will assist the Convention of 1929 to go through if you attach to it that of 1930 as well.
In the Convention of 1930 it was found, as the result of experience, that new types of ships needed an alteration in the load line that had existed in this country. Two such types of ships were those carrying deck cargoes of timber and oil tankers. It was found that the load line which is at present observed in regard to ships sailing under the British flag was such that it caused very great disadvantages when British ships were in competition with ships under other flags. I think it will surprise your Lordships, as it certainly surprised me, to be told that 20 per cent. of the weight of all the imports into this country is timber. When you come to the ships that carry a cargo of timber alone, nearly 90 per cent. of those ships are under
194
foreign flags. If you take together the ships that carry a whole cargo of timber and those that carry a mixed cargo of which timber forms a part, 75 per cent. are ships sailing under foreign flags.
I think the House will realise that, once we get international agreement as to the load lines required for safety in timber-carrying ships, British ships will once more be able to compete. It will of course be a hard struggle to regain the carrying trade that we have lost in that direction, but our people think they can do it, and I believe your Lordships will agree that they should be given the chance. The Convention of 1930 has to come into operation by July 1, 1932, and the change could not be made till then, but it would enable those who are prepared to build ships to realise now that this country would be ratifying the Convention of 1930, and they could begin to build ships that could come into use on the high seas immediately the Convention comes into operation in 1932. It is essential, therefore, that the Convention should no through at the earliest possible moment.
As regards oil tankers, these are divided into quite small sub-divisions. They are, of course, much more subdivided than ordinary cargo ships. The tanks go straight down from deck to keel and are sub-divided perpendicularly. The ships are sub-divided into smaller compartments. Such a ship can still float after an injury which would probably endanger the safety of a ship of the ordinary type. It has been found by experience that we can have a deeper load line in oil tankers than in the ordinary cargo ships, and therefore, in the Convention of 1930, it was agreed with other Powers to allow deeper load lines than are possible in the case of general cargo. I ought to say that it was found difficult to get agreement on that subject, because the United States which, of course, has very wide ex perience of oil tankers, wished to have a deeper load line than we and other Powers were prepared to accept, but unanimous agreement on the load line for oil tankers was arrived at.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote to your Lordships a sentence from a paper written by Mr. David Arnett, the Chief Surveyor of the American Bureau of Shipping, who was a member of the

195
United States Delegation to the Convention of 1930. He concluded the paper with these words:—
"Ratification of the Convention by the maritime nations of the world will be a tremendous step in advance over existing conditions, not only from the safety standpoint but also because of the fact that such action will ensure compliance with the load line regulations in all parts of the world and will place individual owners and nations on a fair competitive basis."
I think your Lordships will agree that the sooner we can get both Conventions ratified the better it will be for this country. I know that the noble and learned Lord opposite is anxious that the Convention of 1929 should go through successfully, and that it should be followed by the 1930 Convention. The point which I wish to make is this. Those two Conventions were really one whole, and it is much better to get the whole thing through in one Bill—and I think you would get both Houses of Parliament to agree to that without great difficulty—than to separate them and possibly endanger both by concentrating attention in the 1929 Convention on helm orders, and then possibly not have sufficient time to pass the 1930 Convention. May I quote to your Lordships a statement made to me by Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond, who was Chairman of the 1929 Conference:—
"Although I was not engaged in the Load Line Conference we had had very much in mind that the work of our Conference was to be completed by the Load Line Conference and that the two Conventions would form part of a single whole."
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Oliver, Chairman of the 1930 Conference, in a speech at the closing session said this:—
"At the closing session of the Conference of 1929, Senator Rio [head of the French Delegation] in an eloquent speech, referred to the Convention that was then adopted as 'a great charter.' But that Convention did not establish international standards fixing the loading limits for merchant ships generally. It has been nor aim and purpose to complete the work in the spirit that actuated the Conference of 1929; and if, as I hope and believe, we have accomplished that aim, we shall in the two Conventions have indeed a great charter placing the international oversea carrying trade of the world on a basis of safety such as has never hitherto been attained."
There are the statements made by the Chairmen of the two Conferences of 1929 and 1930. They both agree that they form one complete whole, and all I am
196
asking the House to do is to refer this Bill of the Government to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
Then, if your Lordships are good enough to give my Bill a Second Reading, as I hope you will do early next week, that Bill could also be referred to the same Committee. That Committee will then be able to produce a Bill giving full effect and ratification to the agreements made at those two Conferences. I believe that Parliament should be given an opportunity of ratifying the two Conventions together, and in that way we shall, I think, be giving a lead to the world, as the noble Lord desires, and possibly persuade other nations from ratifying one and leaving the other unratified, because it does not perhaps suit them quite so well. I believe that if we can get both Conventions dealt with as one we shall reduce the difficulty, and I see no reason why, when placed in one Bill, they should not receive the assent of Parliament not one whit later than if they were brought forward as separate Bills. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will support me, when this Bill has been given a Second Reading, and refer it to a Joint Committee.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest possible care to the remarks which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, and from the noble Earl who has just sat down. I take a particular interest in this Merchant Shipping Safety Convention, because I had the honour and privilege of serving on the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee under the able Chairmanship of Sir Norman Hill, which was particularly concerned with the question of life-saving appliances, and I welcome the introduction of a Convention to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. They are of a most important character. They provide that floating appliances might be used to supersede, or take the place to some extent of boats carried in ships, and I think it is of interest to note that the majority of casualties, if any accident happens to a ship, occur within fifty feet of the ship's side. I therefore welcome the introduction of floating appliances as provided in the Convention. I also welcome that portion which deals with wireless telegraphy. All the provisions of that portion are of the greatest possible

197
importance, but I do agree with Lord Stanhope on the subject of the words to which lie alluded, in line 33 on page 2, about giving effect to regulations when "expedient" to do so. I entirely share his distrust of the words he quoted.
There is one clause in the Convention Bill which, I think, is possibly more important than, or as important as, anything else in the Bill, and that is the portion which refers to the reversal of the helm orders. I listened with the greatest possible care to Lord Parmoor, because I expected that the Minister introducing the Bill would be able to give a. careful and reasonable explanation of the justification for the proposal. I am sorry, but I could not understand the Minister's explanation at all. He said we were invited to make right right and left left, but I really could not follow from his explanation what really was the view of the Government. I submit to your Lordships that when you are going completely to reverse the existing orders, which from time immemorial, right through our history, have obtained in British ships, we ought to be given a careful explanation why this change is to come about. This Convention is for the safety of life at sea. I venture to submit to your Lordships that if by any chance errors arise, as they are very likely to arise, owing to the reversal of the helm orders, then instead of conducing to safety at sea you will be placing thousands of lives in considerable jeopardy.
It is of interest to examine this question a little bit more than the noble Lord did to-day. On July 3, 1928, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy—a member of the noble Lord's own Party—in another place put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade in the then Conservative Government. He asked him if he was able to make any statement as to the Government's attitude to the proposal to change the form and terms of the helm orders on board ship by international agreement; and what steps have been taken, or will be taken, to ascertain the views of British mariners generally as to the desirability and form of the changes proposed. The Minister replied:—
"Helm orders on British ships are governed by custom, not by law or regulation, and the Board of Trade would not intervene unless the custom were causing
198
danger or unless there were a general desire to consider the advisability of a change and the Board were invited to assist in the process. In that event, the Board would give all the help in their power, but they would make three suggestions: first, that any proposed alteration should be fully considered by masters, navigating officers and pilots before a decision is reached; second, that if the British system is changed it should be to sonic system which will be international; third, that special care be taken to prevent danger during the changeover."
Then Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy asked further:—
"Has the right hon. gentleman any evidence to show that either confusion or danger is caused by the present long-established and welt understood British helm orders?"
Sir Philip Cunliffe Lister replied:—
"No, Sir, absolutely none, and that is why I should hesitate so much to give any support to anything which might be suggested."
Your Lordships will note that in July, 1928, a responsible Minister had no evidence whatever that any confusion or danger was caused by the existing custom. The fact that it is a custom is of the greatest possible importance. It is now proposed to deal with it by a law. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord how he is going to enforce it. These orders are matters of domestic concern in any particular ship. The only confusion that can possibly arise is when a pilot goes on board, and then in practically every case, if he is a foreign pilot, he asks the master of the ship whether the orders are direct or indirect, and he pilots the ship accordingly. As the right hon. gentleman, the then President of the Board of Trade said, this causes no confusion and no danger.
The noble and learned Lord said that a meeting was convened at Trinity House, and he suggested, I think, that the sense of the meeting was taken as to whether the shipping community were in favour of the Convention or not. The noble and learned Lord, however, did not tell us who were present at the meeting. As a matter of fact, I have information as to who were present. Nor did he tell us what the result of the voting was. I am given to understand the result of the voting was a tie. And therefore it is obvious that the division of opinion was equal on the point. I am not quite sure haw many there were

199
for or against. But I do suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the big organisations representing the officers of the mercantile marine, that is to say, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild and the Mercantile Marine Service Association of Liverpool—two powerful organisations, which embrace a very large number of the officers of the mercantile marine—both declared emphatically against the proposed change. The noble and learned Lord said that all evidence was in favour. At a later stage I hope to be able to show him that all evidence was not in favour.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not say that.
EARL HOWE: The proposal is to make the ship's head and the wheel go the same way. At present when the order is given to put the helm hard a'starboard the ship's head goes a'port. The practice comes down to us from the days of sailing ships, I believe, when most ships were steered by a tiller. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord what sort of position will arise when a ship is going astern. I do not suppose the noble and learned Lord can answer these questions on the spur of the moment, but he might be able to tell us later in the debate what the view of the Department is upon this point. Then I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware that a very great number of ships are still steered by a tiller, and what sort of order is given in the case of a ship steered by a tiller. Practically all large barges working crowded and narrow waterways are steered in that fashion, and it is in narrow waterways where the chief danger arising out of this Bill will, I think, occur.
Then, again, take the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade, to which I have referred, that before the change was made he would consult all the people affected. What steps really have been taken to collect opinion on this matter? Have the Government consulted with the great associations representing the officers which I have already mentioned? Have they collected any expression of opinion from the fishing community? Because I can see the greatest possible difficulty in getting such people as old skippers of trawlers, who have been all their lives at sea, suddenly to reverse all the orders which
200
they are accustomed to give to their quartermasters. To the best of my information no consultations have been held, and no representations whatever have been sought for from the fishing fleets.
What associations have the Government, in fact, consulted? I know that the two great associations to which I have referred are against any change, and they represent most of the officers. I know that the United Kingdom Pilots Association are against it. I know that the Trinity House Channel Pilots are against it. I know that the Trinity House River Pilots are against it. I know that a number of very important captains of ships are against it. I have an opinion here from the captain of the Mauretania, in which he says that this proposal, affecting helm orders, is nothing else but juggling with the safety of the ship and of all on board.
Has the noble and learned Lord any explicit expression of opinion from the Admiralty Court? At least one distinguished and learned Judge of the Admiralty Court, Mr. Justice Hill I think it was, has expressed his opinion very forcibly on the subject, and has suggested that no change should be made. Then, I understand that the solicitors who practise in that Division of the High Court are very much against it. Then there is a further point as to what effect the change will have upon legal decisions affecting collisions in British Courts. The argument is used that we must not do anything about this because, if we do, probably foreign countries will retaliate, or we may wreck the Convention, or something of that sort. I submit that on a point such as this we are entitled to express our opinion as a maritime nation. We have 10,000 ships at sea, we own approximately half the world's tonnage, having, I believe, altogether some 23,000,000 tons of shipping. Surely we are entitled to say whether or not we are to have these helm orders. Then I understand that other nations are by no means unanimous. I understand that in America the same custom exists as exists here—the indirect system; and if you add the American tonnage to our own the vast majority of the shipping tonnage of the world can be said to be administered under the system of indirect helm orders.

201
I consider that the proposal is a thoroughly dangerous one. It is one the danger of which may only become apparent after a very great disaster has taken place. Supposing you have a disaster in which one of our biggest ships is concerned. It might happen to the "Majestic" or the "Berengaria," going in or out of Southampton. What would he said of the Government if it were eventually found that such a disaster was doe to this change in helm orders?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: lit would not be the only disaster due to this Government.
EARL HOWE: It is possible the noble Lord may be right in that. At any rate, I feel that this question is one fraught with the very gravest possible danger. I feel that there has not been sufficient consultation with all the people affected, and that the question demands much further examination and much further explanation than the noble and learned Lard has been able to give us this afternoon. For that reason I shall for the moment support the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses. At the same time I want to reserve all my rights to move at the appropriate time an Amendment rejecting Clause 22 of the Bill.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I have been much relieved to hear the close argument of the noble Earl who has just sat down, supported, as it is, by a great deal of evidence about the facts of the case, with regard to Clause 22 of the Bill. So far as the Bill in general is concerned, I am sure that those who attach importance to the prosperity of the shipping industry of this country value the labour which has been bestowed upon it and desire that the efforts which have been made should succeed. But from all I have heard with regard to the probable effect of passing Clause 22 and its coining into operation as it stands, I have the gravest possible fear that this clause will be a blemish upon the Bill, if it becomes an Act, which we shall have the greatest possible cause to regret.
The noble Earl referred to testimony from many quarters. He referred to the knowledge of those who have experience in the Admiralty jurisdiction in this country. I came here this afternoon
202
because, in the judicial position which I hold, I have a substantial responsibility in the matter. I came here to say that while this question has been under discussion for years, I have never heard a man with practical experience of the matter who did not deplore that such a proposal as this should be made. It is spoken of as a simple plan for going left when you say "left," and going right when you say "right," instead of going right when you say "left" and going left when you say "right." That would be very pleasant, of course, in a nursery tale; but the real position of the matter is that, as the noble Earl has said, for many generations the seamen of this great industry of ours have been brought up to follow a simple procedure with regard to the helm order—port your helm and the ship's head will go to starboard; starboard your helm and the ship's head will go to port. It is the commonest thing in the world.
I have attended to the evidence in collision cases in our own jurisdiction, and to what has arisen regarding collision cases, and I am bound to say that I have never known of a collision which has been due to any error of any English seaman with regard to a helm order. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, referred to a grave mistake which was made by a Belgian pilot who was in charge of a German ship. I do not know how they got mixed up, but I know that in our Admiralty affairs collisions of foreign ships and English ships or foreign ships and foreign ships constantly arise. I call to mind collisions in every quarter of the world, and I have never known of life lost by the adherence to the present perfectly simple and habitual helm orders. A man is almost born when he is in the shipping industry to do this thing. He does it automatically. He follows the order without thought as to its consequences, and he does it with safety on that principle of port your helm and the ship's head goes to the right.
On the coining into operation of this Bill it is to be the law that it will be a misdemeanour if any person on board a British ship who means a ship's head to go to the right shall give the accustomed order "Port," or if he means it to go to the left, shall give the accustomed order "Starboard." There is no

203
sort of precaution for accustoming men to the change and no sort of preparation for it. There is a day fixed when this Bill is to come into operation and then you introduce the hopeless confusion which this proposal will introduce. The moment of emergency really is the only time which matters. Most of the day and most of the year the ships move along with perfect safety and people have time to think. But in a moment of emergency if an error is made then, it is the deadly error to which the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, referred.
I will not dwell upon this matter. I regard it as a thing which affects the lives of our fellow countrymen. True, it affects the shipping industry. What persuaded ship-owners, owners of cargo and underwriters to come into a scheme, not, as the noble and learned Lord opposite said, for giving the benefit of our experience but for withdrawing from our own half of the shipping of the world the practical advantages of our experience and submitting our shipping to a rule about which our seamen know nothing? How that came about I cannot conceive; but so far as I am concerned, I thought it my duty, with the necessary contact I have had with this question, to present to the House, in support of those of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the views which I have taken the liberty of presenting. I sincerely trust that the Bill will not be passed into an Act in the form in which it now stands with regard to helm orders.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, it has been clear to your Lordships from what has already been said, that there are in this Bill two or three points of a highly technical and also of a most important nature, which certainly require very careful examination before the Bill becomes an Act. The procedure of a Joint Committee, as your Lordships are aware, would afford opportunity for the evidence of expert witnesses being heard which would not be the case if the Bill was referred to a Committee of the Whole House. There are several institutions, such as the Chamber of Shipping and the Master Mariners' Associations, which certainly deserve to be heard on matters affecting them so closely as this, and I may say that is the reason why I have spoken. My noble friend Lord Reading, who is unfortunately unable to be
204
in his place this afternoon, would have supported the Motion of the noble Earl, had he been here.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the very weighty and important speech to which we have listened from Lord Merrivale has, I feel confident, made a deep impression upon the House as to the extreme undesirability and, indeed, danger of altering this old-established custom as to helm orders. His experience has told us that up to now no collision within his knowledge has ever been due to the existence of the present helm order. That experience was borne out, as Lord Howe mentioned, by Mr. Justice Hill; who, in his time, has tried something like 800 collision cases, and he has stated most positively that in not one of those cases was there any danger from, or indeed any accident due to a misunderstanding of the existing helm orders.
But the matter goes further than that. Not only is there no danger in the existing helm orders, but the persons whose experience at sea entitles and indeed compels us to listen to them, tell us there would be extreme danger in altering it in the manner proposed. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has referred to those two great associations which represent the masters and the navigating officers—namely, the Imperial Merchant Serv Guild, on whose behalf I presented a Petition a few days ago against this alteration, and the Mercantile Marine Association, for whom the noble Earl, Lord Howe, presented a Petition to-day. Then there are the Trinity House pilots. These are the men primarily and deeply concerned in this matter. Their lives indeed depend upon safety at sea, and can it be said that their experience and their advice is to be set aside and ignored by the British Parliament? And why? Because, apparently, as Lord Stanhope told us, some foreign shipowners desire this alteration. Lord Stanhope was very mild in his support of this proposal, and he went so far as to say that had it not been for some foreign shipowners we should never have consented to it.
May I point out one fact with regard to what happened at the International Conference when this alteration was agreed upon? It is a remarkable fact—and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will explain it—that

205
to that Conference not one single representative of those two great organisations of masters and of navigating officers was invited or was present. Why that was so I do not know. The noble Lord has told us that the delegates were summoned by the Board of Trade, and, if that be so, it makes it all the more extraordinary, because, as Lord Howe has pointed out, the President of the Board of Trade expressed himself most strongly, in answer to a Question in the House of Commons, that no alteration should be made in this helm order without consulting fully the masters and navigating officers. And the matter does not stop there. There is another body of people who navigate the sea whose interest should be consulted, and those are the seamen, the National Union of Seamen, numbering. I do not know how many thousands of men, to whom the safety of life at sea is at least as important as to any other body of men in this country. What happened at this International Conference in regard to the National Union of Seamen was this. A Committee was appointed by the Conference to consider this question of helm orders, and there was one representative of the National Union of Seamen who was summoned to this Conference. His name, I think, was Mr. Gunning. Unfortunately, at the very commencement of the work of the Committee of the Conference, he fell ill, and was unable to attend any of the meetings. The result was that at those meetings of the Committee there, was no one whatsoever to represent the interests of the National Union of Seamen; and if my information is correct, the vast majority—if, indeed it is not the unanimous desire—of that National Union of Seamen wish that this helm order should not be passed.
There is only one other point to which I shall refer, and it is this. I was astonished to hear from the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill that if one item of the Convention was altered by your Lordships' House or the other House, the whole Convention would fall to the ground. That is a very strange doctrine. We have Clause 22 of this Bill brought before your Lordships to-day, and your Lordships will be asked to consider that clause later in Committee. Are we to be told that when a Motion is down to leave out Clause 22
206
it is out of the power of this House or the other House to cut out that clause or the whole Convention falls to the ground? Of course what would happen would be this. If the British Parliament in the exercise of its judgment cut out that clause, the other parties to the Convention would be asked to consent to its elimination, and no doubt they would do so. When the time comes I sincerely trust that your Lordships may see the great dangers that will result from this clause, will realise the absence of any reasons for alteration, and may be induced to agree to the proposition to leave out Clause 22.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, it is not my intention to speak for more than two or three minutes. I have listened to this debate with very great interest, and I have been very much struck with some of the arguments that have been brought forward in favour of the Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. I confess it seems extraordinary that the Government will not accept the suggestion which has been made. Everybody who has to do with shipping must know that you cannot get reasonable safety unless you have international arrangements. I cannot see how you are likely to get international arrangements if you have three separate Bills, and you have to settle one Bill and then go on with the second Bill, and after that with the third Bill, which, I understand, is to be brought forward next week. Surely, any reasonable man will agree that it would be better to have these three Bills combined into one Bill, and brought forward in that form so that we might get some international arrangement. I am surprised that the Government should not accept a suggestion of this kind. Surely, it would be much more to their credit if they were to pass a Bill dealing with these important matters which would be accepted not only by the British nation but by all nations, and have an international arrangement in order to bring about the greatest possible safety for those who follow this very dangerous occupation of going to sea.
Another point that rather struck me is this. I do not like an arrangement by which the Board of Trade can make regulation s to do practically what they like. You are taking away the power from Parliament and putting it into the hands of a Department. Noble Lords who have

207
heard me speak in this House occasionally know very well my views on giving this power to a Department. The Department does not, as a rule, consider what ought to be the great object of any regulation, but they consider how it will affect the electorate. I have the very greatest suspicion when you give a power of this kind to the Board of Trade. I should like to see that provision eliminated. I would much rather the three Bills were taken together and sent to a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. You would then get a sensible and valuable Bill, which could not only be carried out in this country but in regard to which you could get an international arrangement. I feel sure that if the Government would do that they would get more credit than will come to them by splitting up the Bills in the manner proposed.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the questions that have been asked. I think I can answer most of them, but some specific questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will have to stand over to a later date. On the first point, as regards the Second Reading of the Bill, I understand there is no opposition to that, although I quite understand the view of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, that the Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee. That I will deal with later. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that subject to that requirement of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, being assented to, he should not oppose the Second Reading. Indeed, I do not think that anyone suggests that this Bill should not receive a Second Reading. Then there is the question about the drafting of the Bill to which the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, referred. On that I should like to say a word. The words he takes objection to are really what I may call common form words which have been used on similar occasions. I do not say that is a justification, but drafting very often runs on well known lines. The words put to me are these: Such rules as may be "necessary or expedient." I think those are the words to which the noble Earl took exception.
EARL STANHOPE: "As appear to the Board of Trade to be necessary." "As appear to the Board of Trade" was the point.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it means the same thing.
EARL STANHOPE: No, it is quite different.
LORD PARMOOR: It is a question of drafting, and legitimate questions of drafting will have to be considered. The more important point, as it has turned out, I think, is the point as to helm orders. What is claimed is that the decision of the International Convention should be so far reviewed. Of course the general Convention, which was arrived at after consideration of all the matters which came before the plenipotentiaries, has to be considered as a whole, and, though some of those matters may not have been exactly what is desirable to an individual nation, yet you have to consider the whole Convention if you are to pass on to the ratification of an International Convention of this kind.
Before I go to the further question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, let me say that I think there is a general consensus of opinion that matters of this kind are best settled by international arrangement or International Convention. I should have thought that that was an unassailable proposition at the present moment, particularly for a country in the position in which we stand of being, as I have said, a pioneer and foremost in bringing provisions for the safety of vessels at sea up to the highest efficiency that can be reached. Are we going to reconsider the terms of the Convention? Is the helm order to be reconsidered de novo? Of course that is the intention of the objections that have been raised to-day. I do not deny the objections, such as they are—there are two sides to this question—objections such as were raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, whose opinion on a matter of this kind deserves every attention; but I cannot agree with the inference which he draws that there is likely to be more danger or more risk. I should have thought the advantage of an international arrangement of this kind was that it diminished risk. I am instructed that English captains responsible in these matters denied altogether the suggestion that they could not make a change in the helm orders which has been made in other countries without real risk.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sure the noble and learned Lord will bear with me. A change of helm orders has not been made in other countries. They use the helm orders to which their seamen have been brought up without any danger to them or to us, and we do the same kind of thing.
LORD PARMOOR: I beg leave to say that with all his knowledge the noble and learned Lord is not accurate. This matter began as long ago as 1889 at Washington. A small number of countries—comparatively small, I think four or five—did, as a matter of fact, use the helm order which is now suggested as an international helm order, and since that time other countries have altered their system. It is not true that no country has altered its system to this direct method of helm order.
LORD MERRIVALE: I was thinking of the French and of other great continental nations. I know what the noble and learned Lord is referring to, but I was not speaking of the small maritime Powers.
LORD PARMOOR: They are maritime Powers of importance as regards some of the matters which have been mentioned to-day, like timber—of very great importance. I do not want to join issue on a matter of that kind, but I want to say distinctly that this matter was begun in 1889, that there has been a change without any real risk of accident, and that again in 1913 and 1914, after the Titanic disaster, the question was raised. It was not settled then, because it was found that there was too much difference of practice between different countries. When the Convention of 1929 came to be considered there was one matter which was considered definitely to be necessary—that is, that you should have one international rule as regards helm orders, and I think every one will realise that, apart from anything like special peculiarities, it ought to be an essential factor as regards the security of life at sea, that there should be no risk of one country having one kind of helm order and another country another. It was in those circumstances that the Board of Trade, which was the Department in control of this matter, called the meeting to which I referred, at Trinity House.
210
I say this in answer to the noble Earl. I sent a message to the representative of the Board of Trade in this House to ascertain the facts as regards the associations to which he referred, and I was told that they were all represented at this meeting at Trinity House and that they were called there for the very purpose that all sides of the case should be thoroughly thrashed out. Of course, there was difference of opinion. Everyone knows that there is difference of opinion in this country on the subject. When the Convention came into operation that, decision was given and assented to by the plenipotentiaries of this country. It is a very serious thing, if you are to carry through these International Conventions—which I think are of enormous importance—if when your plenipotentiaries have consented to a change of this kind (if you like, an important change of this kind), that subsequently the matter should be reopened and what is more or less a different topic raised—namely, that although we have assented to what is contained in the International Convention as regards helm orders, we want some change in our own law in order to make effective the assent we have given. That is a common enough position, but it is not, in my opinion, ground for considering whether an International Convention is to be ratified or not.
We gave power to our plenipotentiaries, they signed the Convention, and the only authority which comes into operation now is the Crown Prerogative. The fact that on some point or other—this point, if you like—you have to get legislative powers in order to carry out what the Convention agreed upon, is not in my view any reason for attempting to re-open a question which cannot properly be re-opened without all the parties to the Convention being convened again to reconsider it. That is the reason why a matter of this kind is exceedingly difficult.
I do not know that there is any other direct question that I was asked, but I wish to add this. If it is the opinion of the House that this matter is of such importance that we can have the Second Reading only if we further assent to the noble Earl's suggestion of a Joint Committee, I must, of course, leave that to the House. I cannot guide the House. I state most positively the view that I

211
hold that, if you want this International Convention to go forward you ought to accept its terms, because our own plenipotentiaries have agreed to it. That is the only test that you can take, and we ought not to mix it up with any other matter. I think it will only lead to confusion if at this stage we re-open (that is what it comes to) a matter of importance, discussed and settled by the international plenipotentiaries. That is a very difficult attitude to take. At any rate, so far as I am concerned, it is not the attitude which the Government can in any way assume. If the House, as a condition of the Second Reading, desires to impose the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, it is impossible for me to object to that. I am in the hands of the House. I leave it at this: that in the view of the Government the simpler method would be to have this Convention in the form in which we have brought it forward to submit to the judgment of the House, and that, in regard to all the questions of drafting and other matters that have been mentioned, the proper form, having regard to the dignity of this House, is that they should be settled by a Committee of our own members on the floor of this House. As I say, I cannot carry the matter further, and I must leave it so.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble and learned Lord one question? When our plenipotentiaries signed this Convention, did not they say that it was subject to ratification by Parliament?
LORD PARMOOR: That I cannot tell you. There is no ratification by Parliament per se. Ratification is by the Crown, and the Prerogative of the Crown. Where Parliament comes in is that if, in order that we should carry out the obligations undertaken, some change in our law is necessary, we appeal to Parliament, as a debt of honour, to undertake to carry it through if possible.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question, by way of correcting what, I believe, is a misapprehension on his part. The noble and learned Lord seems to pin his whole faith on a little meeting held at Trinity House, and he was told that the merchant service was repre-
212
sented there. That is quite true, but did the noble and learned Lord, when he asked for information, on that point, learn what was actually the nature of that meeting and its effect? The effect was really even. There were three parties represented on one side—Trinity House, the Honourable Company of Master Mariners and the Officers' Federation—but those on whose behalf we are speaking were dead against it, and the first-named could not give a corporate vote. They had not consulted their respective societies. I want to make that point quite clear, because I think too much stress has been laid on that Trinity House meeting.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, before we part with this debate I should like to say one word in reference to the general statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the position of what he calls the plenipotentiaries. We are now constantly dealing with these International Conventions, to which we send representatives on behalf of the Government. I agree that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that the question of ratification is, in general terms, one for the Royal Prerogative—that is to say, for the Government of the day—and that Parliamentary ratification is not always necessary. But I must just enter a caveat, in consequence of the very considerable number of Conventions and Conferences that are held. Our representatives who go to those Conventions or Conferences go there with the full knowledge that no effect can be given to their decisions unless the substance of a Convention is ratified by the Government of this country, and that there is no obligation whatever—I will put it even as high as that—on the Government of the country, whether it be the present Government or any other, to ratify a Convention that may have been arrived at by the representatives of this country, unless, in the opinion of the Government, it is desirable and proper to do so. There must, I think, always be reserved to the Government of the day, acting on behalf of the Royal Prerogative, the right, which the noble and learned Lord seems rather to disregard, not to ratify, or to ratify only with alterations, any Convention that may have been made.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not think it necessary to continue the discussion. I quite agree with what the noble Viscount has said, and I think it entirely conforms with what I said. Of course ratification has to come from the Government. Though your plenipotentiaries have power to sign, they are not given power to ratify, but I think that, since they go there with full powers, the intention is, unless there is some great change, not merely that they should have a formal meeting but that there Should be a formal agreement which they are all prepared to sign and which the Governments concerned will ratify unless there is some special reason to the contrary. In this case, since we called the Convention to London and took, as I said, a leading part in it, I think it is assumed by everyone that, if the plenipotentiaries signed, the Government—and we are not the original Government in this connection—meant that ratification would follow. Of course ratification is a Royal Prerogative.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to differ from the noble and learned Lord, but I do desire to make it quite plain, so far as I am concerned, that I do not regard it as any obligation on the part of any Government to ratify. These gentlemen who go to the Convention are very often representatives of a Department, and the responsibility for ratification must be on the shoulders of the Government and not on the shoulders of those representatives.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will desire me to say anything further in regard to the Motion, that stands in my name, and therefore I beg formally to move that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that The Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.— (Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire their concurrence.

RECRUITING OF NAVAL OFFICERS.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE asked for information as to the scope of the inquiry to be made by the Admiralty Committee recently appointed to consider the present methods of recruiting officers for the Royal Navy; and further whether the future of Dartmouth College will be included in that inquiry. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I do not propose at this hour to keep you for any length of time with the Question that stands in my name. I simply want, by a few remarks, to elicit a little more information than was given in the Press regarding the appointment of a Committee of the Admiralty to enquire into the recruiting of young naval officers.
In 1927 I moved a Motion in this House on the subject of the training of naval officers, and I felt then that, in the interests of national economy and for the sake of the advantage of giving general education to the officers themselves, it might be a good thing to consider whether we should not rely further on the public schools and colleges of this country for a supply of naval officers. The debate that followed aroused wide interest, and many parents said afterwards that they had been to the beads of schools and colleges asking whether their sons could get a good general education and then enter the Navy. The heads of these colleges told them that they could do nothing. They could promise nothing and say nothing, because the policy of the special entry from the public schools had never been really systematised or organised. One day the Admiralty would say they would take half a dozen officers. A little later they would say they would take fifty officers and then again say they would take twelve officers. There was no system. It was not organised and the Headmasters' Conference, which is an organised body of college opinion, had never been taken into the confidence of the Admiralty. In this matter the Admiralty had acted rather autocratically and therefore I think the whole policy of the special entry has suffered.
It seems to me that at this time of urgent economy the question is whether we are not incurring excessive expenditure in maintaining two or three different entries into the Navy. There is the

215
system of entry through Dartmouth, there is the special entry from the public schools, and there is the taking of a few cadets from the "Worcester," Pangbourne, etc. In these days, with the necessity for economy, it occurs to me as a matter of consideration whether we are not spending more money than we need in maintaining these three systems of entry, and whether it would not be better to concentrate upon one broad organised system. A good many people have said to me that they are anxious in these days, since the Washington Conference and the continued reduction in the Navy, that their sons should get a good general education before entering the Navy. There can be no doubt that if you take a boy of 13½ years of age his head can only contain a certain amount of knowledge, and if you require him to devote his attention to technical matters you must sacrifice some general education; and there is no doubt that if a naval officer has later on to leave the Service, by reason of naval reduction, this want of general education is a serious handicap to him. Therefore my question is whether this appointment of a Committee will deal with the training of officers as well as the recruiting of officers.
Then I would like to know whether, if it deals with the training of naval officers, the headmasters of schools and colleges are going to be consulted. Is the Headmasters' Conference going to be consulted? Or, are only naval officers and Admiralty officials going to have their opinions taken? Then, is the inquiry going to embrace the future of Dartmouth College? Dartmouth is a magnificent institution. In the language of the house agent, it has been laid out "regardless of expense." It is magnificent in its equipment, in its organisation, and in its staff, and there is no doubt that Dartmouth College has served its purpose well during the time when we required a large number of naval officers. To-day, however, consequent upon reductions in the Navy, the number of naval officers at Dartmouth has fallen off by 20 per cent. The numbers are still falling, and if it is true that we are going to give an increasing number of commissions to people from the lower decks, the numbers will fall faster still. The question then is, is the cost of Dartmouth not excessive per head of the naval officers taken into
216
the Service? It comes back to this, would we not be wiser to concentrate upon one system of drawing our recruits for naval officers, and should we not consider more the claim of the great schools and colleges of the country?
There is no need to waste Dartmouth. It will always form a splendid foundation for a public school. There is no reason whatever why Dartmouth should not be a public school with a naval bias, so far as its O.T.C. is concerned, being the only public school with a naval O.T.C. No doubt many parents would still send their children to Dartmouth, if they were intending to go into the Navy. Then, is this inquiry going to cover Dartmouth, and is it to be a public inquiry, by which I do not mean an inquiry conducted in public but an inquiry of which the findings of the Committee will be made public? After all, the future of our naval officers is not just a departmental matter for the Admiralty. It is a national concern, and I hope therefore I am in order in asking for further information regarding the appointment of this Committee.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I must say that I cannot feel very much in agreement with what the noble Duke has said about Dartmouth. So far as I understand, he wishes practically to abolish Dartmouth as the centre of training for the Navy, and to allow the public school entries into the Navy to be largely increased. Your Lordships all know, I am quite sure, what a splendid grounding Dartmouth gives to lads coming into the Navy—a grounding which is lacking to the boys who pass through the "Erebus." In my opinion, the sea sense necessary to sailors can only be got by joining young, and it will be a loss to efficiency if early training is modified in any way. The noble Duke wants more young officers to enter at a later age from schools. He seems to think that this will mean entries from public schools only. It will also mean that a large number of candidates from the elementary schools will also be eligible.
In my opinion, to get the right type of naval officer we want a man who in his youth has been taught patriotism and the significance of the splendid traditions of this country. No doubt many of the national schools have a sane and healthy outlook on these subjects, but there is also

217
no doubt whatever that many are apathetic, if not actually hostile, and we know that Communists and others are active in their endeavours to introduce seditious and subversive teaching into the schools. For these reasons, I think it would be regrettable if national schools were drawn on for late entries. No doubt noble Lords opposite will put this down to class prejudice. It is nothing of the kind. It would be quite possible to have elementary school candidates as officers in His Majesty's Navy, given the right education. If there has to be a change, I should like to see the early entry kept and a larger open door at Dartmouth to the schools of the whole country. There they would get an education with the necessary outlook, which it is impossible to get from elementary schools. In order to do that the taxpayers would no doubt be called upon to pay the fees of many scholars from the national schools, and this seems rather absurd when as many as are required of the right type can be obtained who are prepared to pay their own way.
When I think of the old days in the Navy, I remember names which are probably quite unfamiliar to your Lordships, but which are well remembered and cherished in the Navy to-day. Some of these officers were stern disciplinarians. Their example was contagious and inspiring, and it was they who implanted in us lads of fifteen and sixteen the same reverence and the same desire to put the Service first in everything we did. And this has been carried on. There are officers now serving, the memories of whose example will be passed on by midshipmen now at sea. I am perfectly sure that these ideals would not inspire in the same way lads of nineteen and twenty. They have already seen something of the world, and their characters are half way to being moulded. They are more critical of everything, including perhaps the Naval Service itself; whereas the Dartmouth lad is critical of everything outside the Service, for he compares things outside to their disadvantage because they are not of the Service, which, owing to his earlier training, is all in the world to him.
At the same time, I would like to see the present system of direct entry remain as long as it is not extended, for this reason: At present we are getting
218
the pick of the public schools, which we would not necessarily get if there were a very much larger number of entrants. Another reason is that it has been found from experience that when the "Erebus" cadet and the Dartmouth cadet are together in the same ship you always find a splendid spirit of competition and rivalry, which is all for the good of the Service. I claim to have kept in touch with the Navy since I left it, and there is one thing which serving officers are unanimous about, and that is the loss of efficiency in the training of young officers, due to the doing away of the sea-going training cruisers which used to be attached to Dartmouth. Formerly two modern cruisers were detailed to take Dartmouth cadets for a training cruise before they joined the Fleet as midshipmen. These ships have been withdrawn from motives of economy. Now the custom is that cadets leave Dartmouth and go to sea, and the atmosphere of the seagoing ship is not conducive to training. It is not like a training ship. The result is that these subordinate officers do the duties of subordinate officers really before they are fit for them.
Many serving naval officers advocate the use of a sailing ship, instead of a cruiser, for training purposes when a ship is re-allotted to Dartmouth. It is very important that a ship should be re-allotted to Dartmouth as soon as possible. I claim that with a sailing ship you would serve a double purpose. You would give the lads that sea sense which is so necessary, and you would achieve economy, because, compared to a modern cruiser, you would get a much cheaper ship, and you would be able to fit her up, and keep her in condition at a much cheaper rate. This may sound rather retrograde, perhaps, to some of your Lordships, but it is not so, with all clue respect. I suggest that it would be perfectly possible to arrange for a vessel of this kind to be fitted in such a way that the cadets would receive as good a modern training as they get in a cruiser. And there would be the added advantage that they would be serving in a masted ship, with all its opportunities for responsibility. Opportunities for responsibility are, to my mind, the most important thing in the training of young officers of the Navy. I can think of at least twelve positions of responsibility

219
in a sailing ship in the making and taking in of sail, and of even more in the operation of striking lower yards and top-masts.
The present Government are known for their anxiety to economise in certain directions. Here is a chance for economy combined with efficiency. I beg the noble Lord who will reply to give some indication whether there is any chance of Dartmouth receiving a seagoing training ship of some description in the near future. Finally, I would like to emphasise that a large number of serving officers are against any increase of the entries from the public schools, and I ask the Government not to be led away in this direction by the specious arguments of the noble Duke or anyone else. To my mind, if such an error was committed, it would shatter the groundwork of the most efficient Service in the world.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, when I was a schoolmaster a good many years ago small boys who entered the Navy entered through Osborne. Later a change was made and that change was made after consultation with the headmasters of the great public schools in the way that the noble Duke has suggested those headmasters should now be consulted. At the time I believe I stood rather alone in the matter in saying that I did not expect that if boys were taken from the public schools and taken at the age, I think it was, of about fifteen, they would have derived very much from their public school course, and I thought it was better to allow things to remain as they were. Many changes have been made since those days and I do not claim to have followed them all. But I think we do fall into a certain confusion of thought when we say that the public school training is so admirable that it is to the advantage of all the boys in the Service to have passed through the public schools. It is not the earlier years at a public school that help the boys most, it is the later years, in which they come to those posts of responsibility which have just been mentioned.
There can be no question that the War and the conduct of the gallant young officers in the War set a great premium upon our public schools, and I do not, suppose that at any time in their his-
220
tory they stood so high in public favour as they do to-day. But speaking generally, the young men who come from our public schools and who have done so well in the public Service of their country, have been those who went right through the public schools from the bottom to the top, and it was in their last year or years that they acquired the qualifications which have enabled them to adorn their profession. The case is different, I fancy, with the University. If a young man cannot afford to spend three or four years at a University with an idea of taking his degree at the end, but can afford to spend one year there, I believe that at that time of his life the insight he gets into humanity in its largest sense and into culture and comradeship by going to the University for one year is well worth his while. But it would be quite a false analogy to suggest that a boy would get a similar advantage by being at a public school for one year. That course, I think, must be a completed course.
On the whole, it is my humble judgment that if boys are taken from public schools they should be those who have reached the older age, and if there is any idea of taking them young that policy would not be nearly so effective as allowing them to be trained for the Navy from their youngest years. But I believe an admixture is an admirable thing. I believe it is a good thing that boys who have been reared in a naval atmosphere from the beginning should be brought into contact with those who have gained rather a different outlook on life by completing their public school career. On the other hand, I can well believe that these public schoolboys who go into the Navy will prove efficient officers; all the more efficient because they are brought into constant companionship with those who, taken younger, have a naval outlook from the very beginning. When, then, we speak of taking boys from the public schools, it is, I think, of great importance that we should draw a distinction between taking them young from the public school and taking them after they have gone through the whole of the public school course and have enjoyed and exercised those responsibilities which will only come to them in their later years at a public school.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, on the whole, I very much agree with the words that have fallen from the right rev. Prelate, and with the general tenour of his speech. But he seemed to me to see in the noble Duke's proposal a plan for taking boys of fifteen or after they have been at a public school for one year. The present plan is that they are taken at seventeen and a-half and, therefore, although that has not quite the merits that we would desire if they were taken a little later, they have then had three or four years of the advantages of public school life. I know there are arguments against it, and I think very likely it would be far better to take them at the time they would naturally be leaving a public school, not at seventeen and a-half but at eighteen or eighteen and a-half, because that would give you those boys who have wished to get to the top of their school and to be in the sixth form. You would have a much better chance of that than if you take boys who are content to leave at seventeen and a-half and have probably given up the ambition of being in the higher places there.
As regards our experience of special entry cadets, I think it is true to say that they have proved themselves very satisfactory. But it must be remembered that the system began so recently that none of those who entered under it have reached really high and responsible places in the Navy. Therefore, it is a little premature to judge. It must also be remembered that those who have got some little way up now were recruited in the War and are possibly a keener type of officer than might be got in time of peace.
I agree very much with the right rev. Prelate that it would be a very great mistake to do away with Dartmouth and to substitute a larger number of special entry cadets. The noble Duke spoke as if you could not get a general education at Dartmouth. Boys get an education there which would compare very favourably with that on the modern side of any school. The whole of his argument really falls to the ground, if I am right—as I am sure I am—in saying that you get an admirable general education at Dartmouth and that the specialising on the technical side is a very small proportion
222
of the teaching. But what is still more valuable at Dartmouth is the sea sense, and the traditions which the boys get at that early age. There is no other place of education, I think, for boys of that age where they are actually brought into contact with young naval officers who are in active service at sea. Dartmouth has been exceptionally fortunate, I think, in the officers who have filled the post of Captain and, as a rule, in those who have assisted them. Although, if I wished to criticise Dartmouth, there might be one or two points I could raise, I do not want to do that to-night; but I want to say that it would be a very great mistake for anybody to imagine that the boys do not get a very good general education there. It would also be a very great mistake to take away the chance at any rate of a large section of our future naval officers of having very early contact with the active naval officers who are there, of whom they see a very great deal, who do a great deal to form their characters and to give them that feeling of alertness, cheerfulness and quick obedience which is absolutely essential for a naval officer.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Loan MARLEY): My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships very long at this late hour, and I will do my best to reply to the various points that have been raised. It might reassure your Lordships if I re-read the terms of reference to this Committee which is under review. They are:—
"To consider whether the present systems of entry of Naval Cadets and Naval Cadets (E) are such as to give candidates of the requisite standard from all types of schools and belonging to all classes of the community a fair opportunity of being considered on their merits for entry as cadets, and if not, to report what changes are recommended in order to extend the fields of selection, subject to the requirements of the Naval Service."
I cannot, of course, interpret those terms of reference, but I can say that beyond the terms of reference there is no restriction whatever on the Committee's inquiry—none whatever.
Equally, there is no specific proposal or specific policy upon which the Committee are asked to report. The Committee do not deal with the subject of the

223
training of naval officers and, therefore, in my opinion, Dartmouth College is not directly included, though, of course, if the system of entry is examined and recommendations are made for a change, that might necessarily involve some alteration in Dartmouth College itself. The same answer applies to the question of training ships, and the question of the substitution of sailing ships as a training for the cadets. I find myself somewhat in agreement with the points raised in that connection. I can only say that I will convey that message to my right hon. friend the First Lord, and I am sure that the economy side of the suggestion will appeal to him.
I was also asked whether the inquiry would be public or private, and I am sorry that I do not know whether it will be public or private. I suppose that rests with the Committee partly. The Committee, I suppose, has a right to say whether the Press shall be allowed to attend its meetings. Otherwise I cannot say; but I am prepared to find out and to inform the noble Lord who asked that question. Of course, almost the same reply must be made to the right rev. Prelate in this matter; because, of course, it is obvious that the question whether the special entries shall continue or be extended or modified is definitely within the terms of reference of the Committee. Therefore I cannot say what finding the Committee will come to in that connection. I can only say it is definitely being considered. The noble Lord who spoke last (Viscount Bridgeman) will, I know, be glad to hear this. I do not want it to be thought that in setting up this Committee my right hon. friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was in any way dissatisfied with the standard of the present entrants, either educationally or in other qualities which are necessary to make a good officer. It is not a question of being dissatisfied. On the other hand, it is possible that the present system of entry and the present financial arrangements tend to restrict the field from which entrants are at present drawn to a comparatively small section of the community, whereas the national system of education is developing the ability and the character required in a naval officer
224
in a much wider field—a field which may be expected to extend still more in the immediate future.
I shall deal with the next matter very briefly. The question arises whether it cannot be urged that the best course would be for the Admiralty to concentrate upon the present system of promotion from the lower deck through the rank of mate, and to make more promotions under that system. Anybody who has served in the Navy knows that that system has certain obvious disadvantages, but the Admiralty have appointed a separate Committee to deal with that aspect of the problem. I do not propose to read the terms of reference, but that Committee will consider in what way the disadvantages of the mate system can be mitigated. In any case, I think, those members of your Lordships' House who are interested in this question will know that the system is not altogether satisfactory, and that there seems a definite disadvantage in necessarily entering boys who are going to be officers through the lower deck. It seems to the Government that there must be some better way of widening the basis from which the choice of future naval officers is made. The Admiralty are anxious, with the help of the Committee referred to, to ascertain whether by any alterations of syllabus or other conditions of entry—not excluding financial conditions—they can encourage candidates who will not only reach the present high standard to which the noble Lord referred, but should even help to raise that standard still higher, to come forward for entry-as cadets from other types of school and other classes of the community besides those from which the Navy already draws. That is a method by which we hope to be able to take advantage of the natural evolution of our national system of education.
In that connection, I do want to say one word of re-assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, who reminded us of the terrible communistic tendencies of the public elementary schools. I know that it is not due in any way to class prejudice, as he suggested. I think it is due to unawareness of the real facts of

225
the matter. I feel certain that he need not have the fear that he suggested. I was very glad to hear him say that he wanted to see an open door for boys from all schools. I am quite certain that my right hon. friend will be very glad to hear that expression of opinion from him. We do not know when the Committee will report, but I am certain your Lordships
226
will await its Report with great interest. I can assure your Lordships that the Admiralty are looking forward also with great interest to that Report. I trust that I have dealt with all the questions raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.