My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bull Bay Water, Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water, and Monks and Princes Risborough Water; and to move that it be read a first time.

My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bury Saint Edmunds, Hastings. Northampton, Paignton, Poole, and Sheffield; and to move that it be read a first time.

moved, in subsection (1), after "sufficient," to insert "in." The noble Lord said: This is merely a grammatical Amendment.

I accept that.

moved, in subsection (1), after "bird," where that word secondly occurs, to leave out "to." The noble Lord said: This is another grammatical error. I beg to move.

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "freely." The noble Earl said: This is really a very small matter, and now that your Lordships have accepted an Amendment, which will not destroy the Bill, it is quite obvious that the Bill will have to go back to another place, and we can consider without any arrière pensée the best terms in which it should be amended. I have no views at all on this matter, and I am prepared to leave it entirely in the hands of the representative of His Majesty's Government. Whichever he thinks best, either my own Amendment or the Amendment in the name of Lord Raglan to leave out the words "and exercise itself," I am quite prepared to accept. The point is whether my next Amendment to leave out the word "freely," should be adopted or not. I am entirely in the hands of the Government on this point, and it is in matters of this kind that we trust them to see that legislation of this nature is conceived in such terms as may be easily interpreted by magistrates before whom cases will come for decision. If His Majesty's Government will give me a lead I shall be prepared to follow.

With regard to this Amendment, it is quite true that stated on the Second Reading that there would be a great danger, owing to the congestion of business in another place, of the Bill not finding its way on to the Statute Book this year if any Amendments were made, but I do not think the Amendments that have so far been made will excite violent hostility in another place, and, so far as we have gone, I cannot imagine that we have imperilled the Bill. The noble Earl has said that he would leave his Amendment to the Government and, subject to the consent of the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, I should prefer the clause as amended by the proposal of Lord Raglan, that is, to leave out the words "and exercise itself." The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, having got rid of a split infinitive, now proposes to delete these words. They might put the magistrates in some difficulty in interpreting what is meant. That is my suggestion to the noble Earl.

I do not know what the noble Earl will do after receiving the suggestion of the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Government, but it seems to me that the Bill would give much less trouble to magistrates who have to construe it if the Amendment of Lord Raglan was accepted rather than if it took the form which the noble Earl's Amendment would give to it. If a bird is to be in a cage at all it might be able to move its wings "freely," but to "exercise itself" might give magistrates great difficulty. It would depend on the kind of bird. You might keep a bird which, in order to exercise itself, must be able to run considerable distances. Other birds are accustomed to fly and to fly very high. I am not at all convinced that a skylark ought to be kept in a cage at all, and if the Bill is reformed in the sense of the noble Earl's Amendment, magistrates would be obliged to hold that a skylark could not "exercise itself" freely because it has not room to fly, and that would be equivalent to saying that skylarks should not be in a cage at all. I prefer the Amendment of Lord Raglan, but I should not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division if the noble Earl insisted on his Amendment.

Obviously it will be for the convenience of the House if I withdraw this Amendment and do not move the second Amendment standing in my name.

moved, in subsection (1), after "freely", to insert "to," and to leave out" and exercise itself."

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

My Lords, I have given my noble friend notice that I desire to call attention to what he said on the Second Reading of this Bill. This is the passage to which I desire to refer:—

"On the more important question which Lord Strachie has raised—that of a proposed survey, which was also raised by Mr. Lloyd George and others in another place—I am unable to say anything at present. The matter is under the serious consideration of the Minister and his advisers, and I have no doubt that in due course some statement will be made in another place upon the subject."

That is rather an extraordinary statement on a question in which many of your Lordships are much interested. This is not by any means an unimportant matter. Let me recall to your Lordships what happened on the Report Stage of this Bill in another place. An Amendment was then moved for a land survey, and it appears that, in order to get rid of the difficulties of this Amendment, which, it seems, the Minister of Agriculture did not very much like at that moment, and to avoid saying one thing or another, some sort of promise was made. Mr. Wood said, in fact, that he would consider the possibility of achieving the same object, that is to say, a land survey, in other ways. What does that mean? Apparently, although he resisted the Amendment, he undertook to consider whether a land survey might not be provided for in some other way. It may be that under this very Bill, if it becomes an Act, there may be some way of introducing a survey by some side-wind or other.

At any rate the Amendment was with drawn, and it is very interesting to note what, followed. On the Third Reading in another place, the Minister was asked whether he had considered this question of a survey. Mr. Wood then said that one or two months ago he had begun to consider the question of a survey of a limited nature, and he went on to say that his mind had turned to the idea of taking sample bits of land, in the same way as samples were taken of cheese when bought over the counter. That is rather an extraordinary statement to make. It you have a survey you must have a survey of the whole of the country which, of course, would be most expensive and very unnecessary. On the other hand, if you have, as contemplated by the Minister, a sort of patchwork survey, first in Scotland and then in different parts of England, I should like to know what real purpose this would serve. It seems to me that Mr. Wood is trending in the same direction as the Land Valuation Act of 1909, which we well remember, which was an absolute failure and led to very great expense, and through which we are still suffering from a large horde of officials at the present time. I think I am entitled to ask for some explanation of the view of the Government in this matter instead of waiting for some announcement to be made in another place.

My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Strachie has quite got hold of the right end of the stick in this matter. He started by saying that a Motion was made, I think on Report in another place, for the taking of a land survey. So far as I can discover no such Motion was made. I think that Sir Archibald Sinclair made a Motion for some differentiation between grass and arable land is the Return, and it was on the strength of that that the leader of the noble Lord's own Party in the House of Commons, somewhat irrelevantly, if I may be allowed to say so, and quite outside the scope of the Bill which is now under your Lordships' consideration, asked whether it would not be possible to have a land survey indicating to some extent whether land was being well farmed or under-farmed. What I should like to impress upon the noble Lord is that this suggestion of a survey, although outside the scope of this Bill and entirely irrelevant to its purport and its intentions, was raised by Mr. Lloyd George—perhaps individually and not necessarily as representing his Party—and the Minister of Agriculture promised him, in reply, that he would look into the matter and see to what extent such a survey might be possible or desirable, and would be prepared to answer questions if they were put to him thereafter. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is no offence in any way to this House if I do not find myself in a position to make any declaration to your Lordships on the matter at the present time.

I should like to take this opportunity, as the matter is now under the consideration of the Minister of Agriculture, of saying that I cannot see that there need be any reason for our being in any way anxious about the results of such a survey, if it comes to be made As the Minister desires, with such assistance as he can obtain from reliable agricultural sources, to formulate an agricultural policy which will command the support of all political Parties, and consequently have that element of continuity upon which alone security can be founded, it is obvious that he cannot turn a deaf ear to any suggestion emanating from any authoritative political source. If Parliament wants information—and I rather gather from that which the Minister said in another place that at least the House of Commons wants information on this matter—the Ministry of Agriculture cannot reasonably decline to provide it unless its value is likely to be outweighed by the expense involved, especially as it is hoped that Parliament may before long be asked to apply itself to giving all the assistance that it can to the relief of the agricultural industry.

Moreover, to deny the State the right to any information that it can get about the land of the nation is surely to place it in the position of the otiose landowner, with whom your Lordships, I assume, have no sympathy whatever, who is content to allow his tenants to farm thistles or rabbits provided that he can scratch an adequate rent from them. I suggest to your Lordships, therefore, that if any such survey comes to be made we need not, at any rate so far as we represent the landowning industry, fear the result of such a survey. On the other hand, we have reason to believe that such a survey, if made, will tend to disprove the theory of a general low standard of farming in Great Britain, and will reveal positive directions in which State help may profitably be applied. Let me remind the noble Lord that such a survey would involve new legislation, and it is extremely unlikely that such legislation, at any rate legislation of a compulsory character, will be possible in the near future. In conclusion, I should like to say that the Minister has taken the advice of representative Landowners and representative land agents, and he thinks that it might be quite possible to obtain the information which such a survey would require on a voluntary basis without any compulsion at all.

moved, in subsection (1), after "time," to insert "not being less than twenty-eight days." The noble Lord said: I moved this Amendment in your Lordships' House last year, and it was accepted without a Division. So far as I remember no one made any objection to it, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, who informed us that the Department thought that fourteen days would be better than twenty-eight days, and suggested that we should split the difference and make it twenty-one days. Your Lordships, however, decided that twenty-eight days would be a proper time, and this was inserted. Now the Bill comes back to your Lordships, and the Amendment which your Lordships put in unanimously last year has been cut out again.

My Lords, I should have been very glad to accept this Amendment if I really could be convinced that the kind of objection stated by my noble friend was really adequate, but I think I can point out to your Lordships how, instead of facilitating the acquisition of information if we accept the Amendment in its present form, we shall retard the process. If you are going to fix twenty-eight days as the period within which these Returns are to come to hand it will have the effect of making it appear to the agricultural community that, if these Returns are sent in a month later than the date mentioned upon the Returns, it will be adequate for the purpose. I can illustrate that by analogy, because I assisted in the process of controlling food prices during the War, and your Lordships will remember that when maximum prices were fixed they invariably became minimum prices also.

I think, however, I can bring forward still stronger arguments against the acceptance of this Amendment. This process of collecting particulars, which the noble Lord has set out more or less in detail, has gone on for no fewer than thirty years on a voluntary basis, and we found as a result that within one week no less than 75 per cent. of these Returns had come to hand, and in the course of a fortnight no less than 95 per cent. became available. It is only in respect of the remaining 5 per cent. that we experienced this very great difficulty, which it is hoped will be met by rendering these Returns compulsory, as provided by the Bill. I do ask your Lordships not to retard the process that has been carried out on the part of all responsible farmers for many years past, without any difficulty at all, and to the satisfaction of the Ministry that I represent. If you fix a period of 28 days, and put it in the Bill, believe me you are not going to facilitate the process of collecting information, which we all so much desire to have, in order that we may obtain accurate statistics relating to agriculture in this country. I hope your Lordships will not press the acceptance of this Amendment. I am sure that the apprehensions which Lord Banbury entertains are not well founded, and that the Amendment will not enable us to obtain information quickly.

Last year I endeavoured to induce your Lordships' House to take the same attitude as Lord Bledisloe is now endeavouring to persuade you to accept. The then Government were not so strong as the present Government, and Lord Banbury will recollect that his Amendment was accepted without a Division, against my protest. If the House is going to take a different view because the Government Benches have changed over, that is entirely for the House to decide. I take no part in that, but I am bound to say that I agree with what Lord Bledisloe has said, namely, that this clause in the Bill should be kept in the same form as that in which we introduced it. I hope that the noble Lord will be more successful in resisting this Amendment than we were. I may say that I think Lord Banbury entirely exaggerates the point on which he sought to rely. I cannot find any great principle involved here, between legislation by Parliament and action by particular Departments, and when the question is one of giving a Notice I think it may fairly be left to the discretion of the particular Department to say in what form that Notice should be given. My own view with regard to Departments is that one ought to trust that they will act honestly in matters of this kind, and therefore, if the Amendment is taken to a Division, I shall certainly support my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe.

My noble friend Lord Bledisloe has given no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, except that he thinks it will induce agriculturists to take things rather too easily. Then he said that 95 per cent. made their Returns within a fortnight. Does the remaining 5 per cent. include those who made no Returns at all?

Yes.

In many cases presumably the farmer may be away or ill, and not able to make his Returns, and it is no argument as to what is going to happen if 28 days is inserted, nor is there any evidence of how agriculture is going to suffer, or what inconvenience it will be to the Department if the Amendment is put in. I hope my noble friend will stick to his Amendment.

I am not quite sure that my noble friends behind me quite appreciate the point which Lord Bledisloe has just made. What appears to be the fact is that the vast majority of agricultural Returns for nearly thirty years have been made in a very much shorter time than the 28 days suggested by my noble friend. That appears to be the fact, and I do not think my noble friend disputes it. Ninety-five per cent. of these Returns are made within a very much shorter time than 28 days.

Do you mean of the Returns made, or of all Returns?

All returns of the type to which my noble friend referred, which are now voluntary and which are to be made compulsory by the Bill. What would be the effect of putting "28 days" into the Bill? It is almost a certainty that the very healthy practice of making these returns immediately will be abandoned, and that everybody will take the whole period of 28 days in making his returns.

Might I point out that it is "not less than 28 days." Nobody may be required to send in a return in less than 28 days.

Therefore, I think my noble friend's Amendment would have a very unfortunate effect. However, if I understood him, he wants some limit which should not be left to the absolute discretion of the Ministry of Aviculture. I should be very sorry to have a sharp difference of opinion with my noble friend upon this point, and I would suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment and permit the clause to pass this stage in its present form, and we will see whether we can find a limit which will concede the principle of my noble friend's Amendment but will not be quite so rigid as he proposes. We may not agree as to the twenty-eight days but we may upon some other limit. If he would allow us to consider the matter from that point of view, I would ask my noble friend Lord Bledisloe to consider it with the advisers of the office to which he belongs before the next stage of the Bill. My noble friend will understand that. I do not make any promise to him; he is very familiar with the practice of your Lordships' House. I think that is the best way of dealing with the matter. I do not think there is any risk at all, even if the Bill remains as it is, because your Lordships are not dealing with a body of officials who desire to oppress the farmers of the country. They are on very friendly terms with the farmers throughout the country, and there is no desire to exercise any bureaucratic interference which may put farmers in a difficulty. That is not in the least the practice of the Ministry of Agriculture, and it is not likely to be their practice. They want to be as conciliatory as they possibly can towards my noble friend. As I say, I am willing to see whether we can arrive at some compromise between this stage and the Report stage.

Between 21 and 28 days?

No, my noble friend must not press me any further.

I would like to remind the noble Marquess that he was in his place during the whole of the Committee stage of this Bill last year and that he gave general support to all these Amendments. There is no difference between the circumstances of the Bill now and a year ago. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, or the noble Marquess, has advanced a single valid argument against this Amendment. I admit that the majority of people have made these returns quickly, but nothing in my noble friend's Amendment will prevent them making a return as soon as they like. There is a general and strong feeling among farmers and everyone else in the country against what they regard as interference and tyranny on the part of officials, and the Ministry of Agriculture is probably neither better nor worse than other Departments. People want some protection, and I cannot see why an Amendment which was fully discussed and agreed to by your Lordships last year with, I think, the concurrence of the Leader of the House, is not just as good Dow as it was a year ago. After all, it is a small concession, and at the very most it would retard for a week or two the making of certain returns. It is a concession which farmers have a right to demand, and one in which a considerable number of them are interested.

I desire to support the Amendment of my noble friend. In doing so, may I say that we on this side of the House have not changed the views which led us to support it when it was moved last year and supported by the Conservative Party, in order that this justice might be done to farmers. I agree with everything the noble Duke has said, and I think it is very unfair to expect the farmer to make this return within a certain limit of time. Surely twenty-eight days is a not unreasonable time for him to take in making that return. I should like the noble Marquess to note the fact that there is a general feeling in support of this Amendment amongst the unofficial members of your Lordships' House.

I will certainly consider that.

I certainly accept the, proposal made by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, and I quite understand that he does not pledge himself in any way to meet me, but that he will give his best consideration to the question. May I point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, that he offered twenty-one days last year? I have the OFFICIAL REPORT here, and can remind him of what he said.

Might I remind the noble Lord that it was under duress?

Then I hope my noble friend Lord Salisbury will also be under duress.

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and of the persons employed thereon." The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment of the same kind. When I moved it last year it was accepted without a Division, and I remember perfectly well that my noble friend Lord Salisbury was in the House and made no objection to it. The effect of the Amendment is to allow the farmer the privilege he had when the Corn Production Act was in force—the only Act under which agricultural returns were compulsory. Under that Act no return of the number of men employed was required. It was not until the year before last that the number of men employed was required to be put into the return. As I pointed out last year, it would be very difficult for a farmer to state exactly how many men he employed on his farm during the year, because, as your Lordships are aware, extra men are required in various seasons of the year. It is all very well for the noble Marquess to say that the present Ministry of Agriculture have no desire to deal harshly with farmers. That may be perfectly true; I do not doubt that it is true: but the present Ministry of Agriculture will not be there for ever. We might see in the next three or four years another Government in power and another Ministry of Agriculture, and we might find that Ministry taking advantage of this section to deal very harshly with the farmer.

I am a little sorry that my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam referred again to some observations which I made in relation to a possible survey which is now under consideration, a subject which is wholly irrelevant to the subject matter of this Bill. But I should very much like to clear away from my noble friend's mind certain cobwebs which I cannot help thinking are obstructing his intelligent action. He seems to have a continuous nightmare on the subject of officialism. Some officials, I think he will admit, are necessary.

No, I think not.

If that is so, I do not know how we are to manage to conduct our proceedings if we banish all our officials out of this House I do not know how we should get on. At any rate, the contention that no officials at all are necessary is one that I think none of your Lordships would seriously support. What I do want to ask my noble friend in all candour is whether, in filling up these forms—and he, like other farmers, must have filled up a good many in times past—he has suffered any discourtesy or any unreasonable conduct at the hands of the officials of the Department of Agriculture. We, at any rate, give our officials instructions to use the utmost possible courtesy, and our officials are, I believe, regarded as amongst the most courteous officials to be found in this country.

To come to the subject-matter of the noble Lord's Amendment, we desire to have something like an accurate return, which will give us from time to time full knowledge of the condition of agriculture in this country. If you are going to leave cut altogether all reference to the persons employed in the agricultural industry you cannot possibly have such a full or accurate return. Such a return, is obtained in respect of almost every other industry in this country under the supervision of the Board of Trade, and such a return is compiled as regards the agricultural industry in almost every civilised country in the world. Why should we be behind the rest? I, like other noble Lords in this House, have had occasion to refer from time to time to the deplorable condition of our agricultural industry, owing to rural depopulation. How can we refer to rural depopulation when we have no accurate figure to support our contention? What is the state of affairs as regards accurate knowledge on the subject of the personnel employed in agriculture? We have to wait for at least thirteen years before we can obtain in this country any reliable information with regard to those employed upon the land. The decennial census takes place once every ten years, and it is not for three years after that that the figures are available to any one in this country. How can we possibly say that we shall obtain accurate knowledge with regard to our premier industry in view of the constant migration that is going on from one part of the country to another, if we have no figures more recent than those which represent a condition thirteen years ago? I do ask your Lordships to refuse to accept this Amendment, which is one that goes to the root of this Bill. I, for one, cannot consent to accept it, and I hope your Lordships will support me.

I can fully understand the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. He was extremely successful in opposition when proposals were made last year, amongst others, the proposal that these particular words should be deleted. I do not profess that I offered such a good argument as the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, has done, but I did my best, and your Lordships' House decided they should be excluded. I do not think Lord Bledisloe came to our assistance last year, so far as I recollect. But let me return good for evil. If there is a Division on this matter I and those who sit with me will support the view that I tried to put forward last year that these words should be retained. Of course, if the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, is defeated this time I can only condole with him. He will understand that, even in this House, we are not always under the same conditions one year after another. I hope the words will be maintained and mainly for the reason which Lord Bledisloe has put forward.

I suggest that if the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, were accepted, that would get rid of a great many difficulties. I agree that it is desirable that we should know the number of men regularly employed on the land, but, as the noble Lord knows, in some colliery areas it is a common thing for the miners to go out during the summer and holiday periods to help farmers in their district. Under the Bill as it now stands these farmers would have to make a return of all these men who worked for them casually, and you will, therefore, get a perfectly fictitious number. If the Amendment of the Duke of Buccleuch to insert the word "regularly" were accepted, however, you would then get a return of those who were regularly employed, not a return of those who were casually employed.

The difficulty I see is that no one at present knows what this Return is to be; no one knows the information that will be asked for. I am rather disappointed that Lord Bledisloe did not give the House some information as to what the Ministry would require. I put' the word "regularly" down as the best word which occurred to me. I do not propose to press it, and perhaps the Government will be able to find a more suitable word. It is impossible to include persons as being employed in agriculture who are employed only one or two days. If the return is to give any indication of the number of people employed on the land it would be manifestly misleading if it included those who are employed only at certain periods of the year; it would show a much larger number of people working on the land than was really the case. I put my Amendment down in order to get some information from the Government as to what they mean and what sort of a. return they require. I hope my noble friend will be able to give us some information on the matter.

I am entirely in favour of a return of persons employed on the land. It is most important we should have it, and very much, therefore, depends on the form which is to be sent to farmers to fill up, and what is included in that form. What we want to know is the total number of persons, as the noble Duke suggests, regularly employed. On fruit farms that would include persons who are employed for the picking of the fruit regularly each year. The increase of the population on hop farms at certain periods is, of course, enormous. They are there for six weeks. I do not think any return would be accurate if it omitted all those who are employed in this way. What we want to know is whether the Bill means those who are employed regularly year in year out, or whether it includes those who may be temporarily employed on some special cultivation each year. We also want to know whether the form will include some column which will enable a farmer to make that return.

I think I can reassure noble Lords on this point. In the form which has been in use for some years past regular workers are separated from casual workers, and special figures are placed against each. This return is made on June 4 in each year, and that date is selected because it is a date when the fruit and cereal harvest in this country is not in progress. Therefore you do not get any large number of casual workers in most parts of the country. If you miss out altogether for the first time all casual workers you will get no reliable return as regards agricultural workers in this country. When you enter up your form once every ten years for the purpose of the Census you enter up on that particular date all persons who are in your house, whether they are visitors or servants. That gives you an accurate Return so far as that particular period is concerned. It is just as important for agricultural purposes to have a full and complete Return at a particular period, and before your Lordships decide to scrap the present form let us be certain that you are going to adopt one which will be more valuable as providing the information we require.

I should be perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment provided the Government accepted the proposal of the noble Duke, but I do not feel inclined to withdraw it if I am going to get nothing from the Government. The noble Lord has just said that in the form which he proposes to send out the workers on the land are divided into "regular" and "casual." But that is not in the Bill, and it will not be in the Act, and unless some words are put in defining what is meant by "men in their employment" it will be open to any new Minister of Agriculture to make different rules and different regulations. The noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, knows that I am always most anxious to support his Government and do everything to please him, and if he will give me some little assurance that he will arrange on Report stage for some words to be put in which will define exactly what is meant by the number of men employed, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

My noble friend has made a very kind appeal to me, to which I always desire to respond, but so far as his present Amendment is concerned the argument against it is conclusive. We are anxious, as is every member of your Lordships' House, to get an accurate picture of the present condition of agriculture, so that we may know, in the changes which are threatened in the kind of agriculture which is to prevail, how far it is true that the process of depopulation is going on in the countryside. No one can doubt the importance of that question. We talk perpetually of the change from arable to pasture because of the depopulation of the countryside, and, with a view to laying the foundation of a scientific study of that particular problem, we come forward with a Bill and ask that we may have an accurate picture both of the state of agriculture and of the condition of the population. Obviously the number of persons is absolutely assential; you cannot get on without it, for it is the very essence of the foundation upon which an agricultural policy can be built up to know what the facts are. So far as I can judge from the attitude of your Lordships' House, I think it is the general view that we must have some return as to persons, and, if that is so, my noble friend will see that his Amendment is unacceptable.

Then my noble friend, the noble Duke, asks us to introduce some limiting adjective. I hope your Lordships will forgive me the irregularity of discussing a second Amendment upon the present Amendment, but I think I may just say that, though we shall be very glad indeed to meet the noble Duke in any way we can. I feel satisfied that his word is wrong.

I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I put this Amendment down to raise a debate, so that we might know what the Bill really means. I am not wedded to the word "regularly".

If the noble Duke will just allow me to complete what I was saying, anybody who listened to Lord Harris would see how impossible the noble Duke's word would be. Are the hop-pickers regular or not regular? Do they form part of the picture or not? Under the circumstances it is clear that the word "regularly" would be misleading. Whether we can, upon the model of the existing Return which is now available, insert limiting words in the place of the noble Duke's "regularly" we will certainly consider, and, if we can produce a suitable word, perhaps after communication with the noble Duke, we shall do so. But I hope that my noble friend Lord Banbury will withdraw his present Amendment, which I am sure will not serve a useful purpose, and I cannot promise to accept the noble Duke's Amendment, because I think he sees that there are real objections to it. I am afraid that I cannot say more than that. I am sure your Lordships will be satisfied that, if this Bill is to perform a useful purpose, it must deal with the persons as well as with the crops, and, if it is to do so, my noble friend Lord Banbury's Amendment is impossible. We shall be very glad if we can find an adjective—or perhaps, to be grammatically accurate, I should say an adverb—to describe the character of the persons. If we can find one we shall certainly communicate it to the noble Duke and ask your Lordships to insert it in the Bill, but I am sure that the word "regularly" will not do.

With reference to what I said just now, it occurs to me that possibly the words "occasionally" and "regularly" might suit, and then we might have a defining sentence or schedule to say what was meant by "occasionally."

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

I should like to call attention to one matter in the Bill as it stands. I have great sympathy with the suggestion made by the noble Duke, but the Bill contains these words:

"The return shall be made with respect to the conditions existing on such date as may be specified in the notice."

Accordingly, you want a picture of the conditions at the particular date. There is no difficulty about it. When you have arrived at that particular date—it may be in the hop-picking season or it may be in the harvest or in the fruit-picking period—you want a picture of that date, and it would have to be exact. I do not want to use the word "regular" or "casual" of the persons then being employed, and it seems to me that the Bill really meets the difficulty which the noble Lord suggested. Everyone in this House desires that we should have a picture of the agricultural conditions on a particular date, in order that we may have all the necessary information before us when we deal with agricultural questions. No one is more anxious than I am that the question of agriculture should be permanently settled on a sound foundation, and I believe that a great majority of your Lordships are of the same opinion. I suggest that the Bill should be left as drafted.

I was going to suggest that possibly we might get out of the difficulty by putting in some such words as "the number of men employed at the date of the return."

The words are in.

I am prepared to accept the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Salisbury that he will consider what words he can insert, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

had given notice to move, in subsection (1), after "persons," to insert "regularly." The noble Duke said: After that which has fallen from the noble Marquess and from other noble Lords. I will not move this Amendment, but will only suggest, since the noble Marquess used the word "limiting," that perhaps the word "defining" would be better.

moved, in subsection 3, (b), to leave out "unless be proves that he made the return innocently and without negligence," and to insert "if it is. proved that he knowingly made such untrue return." The noble Lord said: This is the third Amendment which I moved last year when noble Lords sitting on that Bench were sitting on this. I carried all of my Amendments without a Division, and, though I have not been so lucky this year, I hope to be able to carry this last one. I have always understood that the English law held that it was the prosecutor who had to prove that a man was guilty, and not the man who had to prove that he was innocent. This proposal of mine was received, I might almost say with acclamation, even by noble Lords sitting on this Bench last year, and I hope, especially as I have been so very accommodating, that the Government will accept this Amendment.

It is no small relief to me that I am on this occasion able to accept the views of my noble friend. I am informed that his words are not quite sufficient as they stand, but if he will allow the matter to be considered between now and Report I will accept his Amendment and have the matter considered by our advisers.

moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert "or not exceeding six months' imprisonment with or without hard labour." The noble Lord said: One notices that the Government evidently consider that it is a very serious matter for people to disclose the information provided in these Returns because, instead of a fine of only £10, they have provided for a fine not exceeding £50. On the other hand, £50 would not be a very serious matter if the information were so valuable that it might command a. much larger price. I think we will all agree that it is very necessary to make this a penal offence, and I think the justices ought to have the option of sentencing to imprisonment in these cases, as well as of imposing heavy fines.

I should not have thought it was necessary in this case to insert an alternative power of imprisonment, but if the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, presses it, I am quite prepared to accept it in a slightly different form, namely, "or if the Court is of opinion that the offence was committed wilfully, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months." I would refer the noble Lord to Section 15 of the Corn Production Act, under which similar returns are required to be made.

I am quite satisfied with those words.

I should like to be certain that I followed the noble Lord's words. He did insert the word "wilfully"?

Yes.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I will move it in the form which the noble Lord indicated.

had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (5), to leave out "section" and insert "Act." The noble Duke said: I think this ought to be put in. It is a drafting Amendment, but I think the Bill, as it stands, is wrong.

It is just a question of drafting, but I have to point out to the noble Duke that this Bill consists of one section only, and so the reference to "section" really includes the whole Act, and I am advised from a drafting point of view that it is more correct in this form. Still, I am prepared to accept the Amendment, if the noble Duke wishes it.

I do not press my Amendment, and will not move it.

moved, in subsection (6), after "by," to insert "registered letter." The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading, I think, my noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, intimated that he would accept this Amendment.

I hope my noble friend will not consider that I misled him on the Second Reading. What I said was that I would most sympathetically consider his Amendment, but I am advised that acceptance of it would throw an enormous amount of work on the Department, and involve considerable expense, which is not entailed at the present time, if all these forms have to be registered when sent through the post. I do not know that I need go into figures, but no fewer than 400,000 forms are sent out annually, and, if all of them are to be registered, it will not only cost a good deal, but a considerable amount of labour will also be involved, because in the case of every registered communication names and addresses have to be filled up, and receipts have to be signed. Thus it would add greatly to the work and expense involved, and there would be considerable delay. I hope, under the circumstances, my noble friend will not press this Amendment. There is the similar case of the Income Tax returns. Of course, they are not registered, and I hope that my noble friend will not ask that notices in this case should differ from notices in regard to Income Tax.

I think there is a good deal of reason in what the noble Lord opposite has said, and I am disposed to agree, because obviously it would inflict a great deal of work upon the Department. But I would ask him to consider between now and the Report stage whether any notices which led to prosecution should not be issued by registered post. If between now and Report stage he will be willing to consider that, I understand that my noble friend Lord Strachie will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. I hope the noble Lord appreciates my point, which is that it is rather hard on people that they should be liable to prosecution upon notice sent out in just the ordinary way.

By leave of the House I think I can relieve the minds of noble Lords opposite. It is the existing practice. When a reminder is given and no notice taken of it, any final reminder is always sent by registered post.

I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I hope that, between now and Report stage the noble Lord will consider whether some safeguarding words might not be inserted.

moved to leave out subsection (8) and to insert the following new subsection:

"Before any regulation is made under this Act, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall betaken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft."

My Lords, when the noble Lord referred to this matter on the Second Reading, he said that he was of opinion that a much better form had been adopted up to now by the Ministry in the Corn Production Act. If he will allow me to mention it, the actual words in the Bill are those contained in the Corn Production Act, 1917, but I see no objection to his alternative form, and if he wishes I am prepared to accept it.

moved at the end of the Clause to insert the following new subsection:—

"Before any order or regulation is made under this Act a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat against the draft or any part thereof, no future proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to making any new draft."

The noble Lord said: I hope my noble friend will accept, this Amendment. It contains the same provisions as my last Amendment on the previous Bill, with regard to the continued power of either House to alter or nullify any regulations made under this very important Bill. Agriculturists are greatly interested in this matter, and I think there would have been a good deal of discussion in another place if the Minister for Agriculture had not accepted a very important Amendment moved by a member representing agriculturists, providing that before these animals are imported there shall be consultation with the Councils of the Agricultural Societies for England and Scotland. I wish to have the further safeguard that any Regulation made under the Bill shall come before either House of Parliament. I therefore beg to move.

I do not find it possible to accept this Amendment, and I think that the noble Lord rather misconceives the object of these Orders. First of all no Regulations are involved at all, and the only Orders contemplated are to be made by the Minister for the admission of either single animals or shipments of animals, and it is only proposed to follow the same course which has been followed for the last thirty years, since the passage of the. Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, in the case of animals admitted for exhibition or like purposes. I would be obviously inconvenient if every Order had to appear in draft and to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses, with regard to a matter about which Parliament has already agreed that the Minister should have a discretion. The noble Lord has already pointed out that there is a safeguard provided, if any safeguard be necessary, by a limitation of the discretion of the Minister, because now, by an Amendment inserted in the House of Commons, he has to consult the two premier Agricultural Societies of England and Scotland, respectively, before any shipment can be made. I hope my noble friend will rest content with that. I can give him one illustration of the extreme inconvenience which would follow such a course as he suggests. If Parliament were not sitting there might be hung up for a considerable time the admission of pedigree animals from our Dominions which the Dominions desired to see admitted, and with regard to which, in the opinion of the Minister, there was no reason why they should not be admitted.

I am rather sorry my noble friend has not accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, which I think does provide some degree of safety. May I ask Lord Bledisloe a question? He has alluded to the words in Clause 1, "after consultation with the Royal Agricultural Society of England and the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland." What does that provision actually mean? We will presume that certain animals are to be imported, and Mr. Wood consults those two societies, and those societies say that they would rather not have these particular animals imported. Will Mr. Wood be able to say: "I have consulted them, I do not agree with their opinion, and I am going to admit these particular animals," or does it really mean that, if the two societies object, the advice of these societies is going to be taken in the matter?

It is obvious that if the words "after consultation with" are used it does not mean necessarily that the Minister is going to accept the advice given by these two societies. But; it is very difficult to contemplate a position in which he would not give the most careful and respectful consideration to anything that those two societies suggested, and I think the noble Lord may rest assured that the Minister is not likely to disregard the opinion of those two bodies in any case in which it is given.

That is what I was afraid of. I thought there might be some catch in this. Occasionally, in another place, things are put into Bills which are not always what they seem, and I was very much afraid that this was one of the things which are put in to allay the fears of certain people, and mean practically nothing.

No.

Yes. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe has said that the Minister would not lightly disregard such advice. I have not so much trust in Ministers as he has. I am very much inclined to think that they sometimes do foolish things, and are often very obstinate. If a Minister wanted to do anything he would be perfectly prepared to disregard even my advice, and certainly the advice of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. I1 rather hope that my noble friend will persist in his Amendment. If he does I shall certainly vote for it, unless later on an Amendment can be inserted here to give effect to the opinion of the two societies mentioned.

I should like to remind my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, that this was a compromise arrived at in another place. He is a member of the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, as I am, and he knows very well that the Society wanted practically to have a veto on this question, and that only those animals should he brought into the country and entered in the herd books which were approved of by the Council of the Society. That is a very different matter from what is in the Bill. Had that been put in there would have been no objection to the Bill at all, and the arguments of my noble friend would have been good. But this, as I have said, was a compromise, and the Minister is entirely at liberty to consult the Royal Agricultural Society and accept their views or not. There is no safeguard as the Bill stands, and I am certain that agriculturists are very anxious to see the Amendment of my noble friend inserted in the Bill. I may tell my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that, the Royal Agricultural Society supports my view on this matter.

In regard to the Orders, may I remind my noble friend that such Orders have to lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament when animals are imported? If an antelope was imported an Order would have to be laid on the Table. I have seen such Orders constantly on the Table. I really must press my Amendment.

May I make this appeal to my noble friend? I think he must see that in the course of these' proceedings in your Lordships House the Government have been most anxious, as they always would be, to meet the views of experts in the matter of agriculture. But if the noble Lord will look at his Amendment he will see that it is an impossible one. I will not refer to the difference between "after consultation with" and "with the consent of." The two things are different. But that is not germane to the present Amendment, and to treat the words "after consultation with the Royal Agricultural Society of England" as my noble friend Lord Banbury has done, as though they had no value whatever is really presuming upon your Lordships' kind consideration. How can my noble friend believe that the Minister of Agriculture would consult these very important bodies and treat their opinion with absolute contempt? I am sure that my noble friend would never have said that except for the sake of making a point in debate. Let me deal with the Amendment as it stands. In the first place, the noble Lord speaks of Regulations. There are no Regulations, and the noble Lord is positively asking your Lordships to insert an Amendment which does not read. There are no Regulations under the Bill, and it is no good asking that Regulations shall be laid upon the Table of the House when there are no Regulations.

Turning now to the Orders under the Bill, the Orders have regard to specific animals and to specific shipments of animals. The noble Lord said that whenever a single animal is to be introduced into this country from our great Dominions under this arrangement, an Order is to be laid on the Table of the House and, unless the House agrees, a particular animal is not to be introduced. That would be using machinery which was quite out of proportion to the matter in hand. This great machinery of the consent of both Houses of Parliament is used for acts of State of great importance, and it is really absurd that every animal of this type which is to be introduced into this country should be protected by the consent of both Houses of Parliament.

Let me point out further that the provision which the noble Lord asks us to insert is to operate even when Parliament is not sitting; so that an unfortunate animal cannot be introduced for months during the Recess. Is that a courteous way of treating our great Dominions? As everybody knows it is out of deference to them that this particular legislation is introduced at all. The thing is not really arguable, and I would ask my noble friend, to whom I make repeated concessions in these agricultural matters, not to press this Amendment.

I, of course, accede to the request of the noble Marquess, but may I ask him whether he would consider between now and Report the question of whether Orders should have to be laid on the Table of the House in their draft form, as is the case at the present moment? Then, if the House thought fit it could, when sitting, take objection to an Order. I agree that, had we to wait till the draft Order was made, we might have some orders that would be liable to be objected to—

Does the noble Lord suggest that the House of Lords should be asked to consent after the animal has been imported?

I hope the noble Marquess will not make any concessions. It would make the whole Order ludicrous.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

My Lords, I found, after putting this Bill down, that it is a hybrid Bill, and, therefore, requires to go before the Committee on Unopposed Bills. In the circumstances I am afraid it will not be possible under the Standing Orders to take the Bill to-day, and I will put it down for Wednesday next.

Order of yesterday referring the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House discharged, and Bill committed for Wednesday next.

rose to ask if His Majesty's Government has or is prepared to take any steps to provide a lift in the British Museum in a position convenient for the public.

My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to what may be the views of the Trustees of the Museum on this question, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two about it because for more than forty years I have been in regular attendance at the meetings of the Trustees of the Museum. This question came up for consideration before the War, in 1911 or 1912, on the motion of the late Lord Crawford, who was at that time a Trustee. The Trustees made an application to the Office of Works, whether by formal communication or verbally I forget, as to what line they would take, and the reply was that a lift could undoubtedly be provided, but it would be a costly process and involve cutting through a great many stone floors. Then the War came, and after the War the matter has not, so far as I know, been formally raised again, because the Trustees have found themselves constantly faced by the criticism of the Office of Works as to the cost involved in maintaining what is absolutely essential in the Museum.

There are certain friendly controversies not infrequently occurring between the Trustees of the Museum and the Office of Works as to what money can be rightly expended on the Museum building. But the noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that the Trustees entirely approve of the provision of a lift and that it is practically impossible to visit the Antiquities part of the Museum by means of the existing lift, which belongs to what is practically another building a long way off, where, of course, it is of the greatest use, but utterly unsuitable for visitors making use of the front entrance and front galleries. I am a little surprised at the. formidable character given to the staircase by the noble Lord. It is an easy staircase, though rather long, and things are exhibited all the way through. There are sixty-nine steps of very easy ascent.

I am not aware that there has been any strenuous demand for a lift on the part of visitors to the Museum. The Trustees, as I say, are entirely favourable to it. They are not apathetic on the subject, and if pressure is brought by the public they will deal with the matter afresh. They have not the smallest objection to the Office of Works constructing a lift which, no doubt, could be constructed at that part of the Museum. No accurate estimate has been made, but we are told that the cost would be round about £1,000 to make the lift from the ground floor to the floor to which the noble and learned Lord referred. That could, undoubtedly, be done, and that it ought to be done, if there is an adequate demand for it, I entirely agree. If I might put the case as a Trustee, I must say it is not one of the matters on which we are pressed by a public demand, which perhaps exists but which is not vociferous and is not pressed with any great urgency. The Trustees are entirely favourable to the provision of a lift, but, at the same time, do not feel that the demand has been very great on the part of the public. I am putting the matter perfectly straightforwardly and without taking sides on a subject which, obviously, can be argued from more than one point of view.

My Lords, I am much obliged to the most rev. Primate, as a Trustee of the Museum, for setting the matter so clearly before your Lordships. I understand perfectly the position of the Trustees. They are quite ready that this money should be spent, but they do not think they are justified in pressing it upon the attention of the Office of Works. That is the whole case. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for taking the trouble to perform such a laborious pilgrimage up and down the staircases of the Museum and reporting it so faithfully to the House, but I have to say, as the most rev. Primate has said, that I have had no representations at all. Obviously I have not had them from the Trustees of the British Museum, and from no quarter have I had any strong representations that such a lift is required. I do not think that the authorities of the British Museum are at all backward in putting schemes before the Office of Works, and, since this proposal has not been put forward, I can only assume that in their judgment it is not very greatly required.

The noble Lord opposite compared this staircase most unfairly, I think, with Jacob's ladder, which, 1 understand, was a much steeper erection. The most rev. Primate most accurately stated the number of steps, and I should like to say, and can say from personal experience, that nothing could be easier than the riser of these stairs. There are a great number of landings, which are spacious and, as the most rev. Primate has said, contain various exhibits which might divert the attention and assuage the weariness of those who are going up the stairs if they feel exhausted. I am sorry that the noble Lord finds some difficulty in reaching the lift, but I cannot honestly say that I should be justified by any pressure that I have observed, in urging upon His Majesty's Government the spending of another £1.000, or so, in putting in this lift at the entrance. Perhaps the noble Lord will be content if I answer him quite shortly on this point, since there could of course be no question of making the addition this year, because no provision is made for a lift in the Estimates. I will only say once more that I do not find in any quarter any urgent demand of any kind for the installation of this lift. As the noble Lord knows, and as has been already stated, an immense number of demands have been made to the Office of Works for expenditure in connection with the British Museum. I should be very much obliged if the noble Lord would postpone for a few years his urgent request for the establishment of this lift.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motions which stand in my name on the Paper.

had given Notice to call attention to the not infrequent practice of Coroners' Courts holding inquests on the bodies of deceased persons simultaneously with the hearing by Justices of charges against persons arrested and accused of causing the death of the same deceased persons; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Clarendon, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Paper.