Commons Sitting of 5 March 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Eastern Railway Bill,
Great Western Railway Bill,
Midland Railway Bill,
Taff Vale Railway Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Bill (by Order).
Read a second time, and committed.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION, PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bills should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—

County of Lanark Tramways Order.

Loch Ericht Water and Electric Power Order.

Lothian Railways Order.

Report to lie upon the Table.

TRAINING COLLEGES (ENGLAND AND WALES) (NUMBER OF STUDENTS OBTAINING APPOINTMENTS).
Return ordered, "showing, for each Training College in England and Wales, the number of its Students, both men and women, who completed their period of Training in July, 1911, and had not obtained Appointments as Teachers in Schools satisfying the Students' undertaking by the 1st day of January, 1912."—[Mr. Samuel Roberts.
BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (TRADE UNIONS).
Copy presented of Report on Trade Unions in 1908–10, with comparative Statistics for 1901–10 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1859 AND 1876.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 1st March, 1912, declaring Caracas to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
VIVISECTION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Sixth Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into Vivisection, with Appendix, and Copy of the Final Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Sixty-first Report from the Church Estates Commissioners, for the year preceding 1st March, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Sixty-fourth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 TO 1894.
Copy presented of Twenty-third Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1910–11 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 56.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Peruvian Government (Putumayo Murders).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could give any particulars as to measures taken by the Peruvian Government to secure and punish the criminals concerned in the murders of Indians on the rubber plantations of the Putumayo; whether that Government is in a position to establish effective administration in the territory; and whether His Majesty's Government will now publish Sir Roger Casement's report?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I am still in communication with the Peruvian Government with regard to the two first questions. I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply to the last part of the question, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the matter is receiving close attention.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: May I ask whether the reason for non-publication now depends upon the wishes of any foreign State?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask my hon. Friend to give notice of that question.
  Mr. KING: Has anybody really been brought to justice?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of any further questions.

  Portugal (Political Prisoners).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received communications concerning the alleged ill-treatment of political prisoners in Portugal; whether the British Minister in Lisbon has visited the Portuguese prisons; and whether there is any reason to doubt that Portuguese political prisoners are humanely treated?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, and I have no reason to doubt the truth of the suggestion in the third part of it; but; as the question concerns the internal affairs of another Power it is one with which I am unable to deal at any length.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Have any of these prisoners been kept in prison without trial any longer than Miss Malecka?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot add to the answer I have given.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is approximately the total number of Russian troops now in Persia; how many of these have entered the country since 10th November, the date of the presentation of the first Russian ultimatum; and whether since that date any Russian troops have been withdrawn from Persian territory?
  Sir E. GREY: As regards the total number of Russian troops in Persia, I have no later information than that contained in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leicester on the 20th ult. I understand, however, that orders have been issued for the withdrawal to Russia of the Russian troops at Enzeli and Resht, and also for a withdrawal from Kazvin; a part of the force withdrawn from Kazvin will remain at Enzeli and Resht, the remainder returning to Russia. A considerable reduction in the force at Tabriz has also been ordered.
  Mr. MORRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether any of these orders have been carried out yet?
  Sir E. GREY: That is all the information I have at present. If the hon. Member will ask me a question next week I will give what further information I have.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Persian Government have consented to the terms of the Joint Note with reference to the proposed loan?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Minister at Teheran has not reported that a reply has yet been received from the Peruvian Government.
  Mr. MORRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received the exact terms of the Anglo-Russian Note?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think I have got the exact terms: I have only got a telegraphic summary. As soon as I can get the exact terms of the Note, and the Reply, I will communicate with the hon. Member.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the telegram from the "Frankfurter Zeitung" in to-day's papers stating that the Persian Government has sent replies to the Note to both the British and Russian Embassies, and that they have been returned unopened?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not seen that report: I have not heard of any such occurrence.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: The "Manchester Guardian."
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the ex-Shah is still in Persia; and, if so, what steps are being taken to secure his withdrawal?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Minister reported on the 2nd that the ex-Shah had left Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could say whether and, if so, when the Mejliss would again be summoned?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on the subject.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of the present appointment of M. Mornard; whether it is proposed to make it permanent; and whether the Persian Government protested against the appointment?
  Sir E. GREY: I will send to the hon. Member a copy of the Decree of 6th
  182
  January, appointing M. Mornard provisionally Treasurer - General. It is of considerable length. As regards the second point, I have nothing to add to the statement that I made on the 21st ultimo, to which I would refer the hon. Member. With regard to the third point, the Persian Minister in London intimated verbally some time ago objections on the part of his Government, but I have received no official protest from them.
  Mr. MORRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the Persian Government still protests against the appointment of M. Mornard?
  Sir E. GREY: They have not renewed the verbal objection they made some time ago, and they have not followed that up with any official protest.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government have withdrawn or modified the demand for an indemnity contained in the second ultimatum presented to Persia on the 29th November; and, if so, to what extent?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no recent information on this subject.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the declaration he made in December?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, that holds good still.

  Palmyra Island.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement with regard to the island of Palmyra, in the Pacific Ocean, and the question that has arisen as to the ownership of that island?
  Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for West Staffordshire on this subject.

  New Province of Behar and Orissa.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to set up a High Court for the new province of Behar and Orissa?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The different questions relating to the organisation of the new province are still under consideration, and no decision has been made on the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend.

  Oudh and Rohilkhand State Railway (J. (Garstin).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has had brought to his notice the case of J. Garstin, formerly a chargeman on the Oudh and Rohilkhand State Railway, who was dismissed for having petitioned against a fine of ten rupees, which he alleges was unjustly inflicted; whether he had twelve years' service on the line without complaint or charge having been made against him of any kind; and whether he can take action to secure an independent, inquiry into the facts of the case?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no official information on this matter. If the facts are as stated, Garstin would have the right of appeal to the Railway Board, to the Government of India, and ultimately, if his salary at the time of dismissal exceeded Rs.250 a month, to the Secretary of State.

  Jullundur Cantonment, Punjab (Expulsion).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with the expulsion of Lalas Pyari Lal and Devi Dayal from the Jullundur Cantonment, Punjab; whether Lala Pyari Lai is 65 years of age and is the head of a respectable firm of bankers and traders; what is the nature of the charge against them which has led to their expulsion without trial and solely on the order of the cantonment magistrate, Lieutenant-Colonel A. Newnham; whether he will cause full inquiry to be made into all the facts of the case and, pending such inquiry, order the restoration of Lala Pyari Lal to his home; and (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Badri Dass, of the Jullundur Cantonment, who was fined twenty rupees for having allowed a band, of which he was secretary, to play in connection with a religious festival of the Jains, and for which he had obtained a special permit from Colonel Falcon, the commandant of the cantonment; whether on appeal the sentence was reversed and the fine ordered to be refunded; whether Lalas Pyari Lal, subsequently expelled from the cantonment without trial, is the head of the local Jain community, and grandfather to the said Badri Dass; whether Lieutenant-Colonel Newnham, who fined Badri Dass, also issued the order of expulsion against the grandfather; and whether inquiry will
  184
  be made into the whole circumstances to ascertain the fitness of Colonel Newnham for the position he now occupies?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has written to India for information on these matters.

  Durbar (Orders and Decorations).
  Mr. FELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state where the various orders and decorations distributed at the Durbar at Delhi were manufactured?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The badges of the various Orders conferred by His Majesty on the occasion of the Durbar were obtained from the usual London firms. The medals awarded on the said occasion were struck at the London and Calcutta Mints.
  Mr. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware in what country these things were made?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, I have no information. But I can give the hon. Member the names of the London firms, and if he likes, he can make inquiry of them.

  Indian Empire (Royal Proclamation of 1858).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the Royal Proclamation of 1858 Her late Majesty Queen Victoria guaranteed to the inhabitants of all those territories which had hitherto been administered by the East India Company that, so far as may be, her subjects, of whatever race or creed, should be freely and impartially admitted to offices the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity duly to discharge; whether the Indian Government hold that this guarantee is compatible with a regulation absolutely excluding from the civil and police services of the territories affected all persons who are not of pure European descent on both sides; and whether he will take any steps to assure the people of India, who regard this Proclamation as the charter of their rights, that its guarantees will be adhered to?
  Mr. MONTAGU: So far as the territories for which I am responsible in this House are concerned, no such regulation as my hon. Friend describes, exists. As regards territory which has been transferred to the Colonial Office, the Govern-

  185
  ment of India has expressed no opinion, nor has the Secretary of State received any complaints. I would suggest that my hon. Friend should address himself to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Proclamation is regarded by the people of India as a charter of their rights, and that the interpretation placed upon it by a Member of the Cabinet completely nullifies the Proclamation?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If there is any discontent with the regulations affecting the welfare of the Indian people a memorial should be sent to the Government of India and the Secretary of State. No such complaint has been, received.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If the right hon. Gentleman receives complaints from India will he remonstrate with the Colonial Office?
  Mr. MONTAGU: We will always be ready to communicate with the Colonial Office concerning any complaints of substance we receive.

  Army Officers' Khaki Service Dress.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Under Secretary of State for War why, in view of the fact that the officers of the Guards regiments are allowed to wear turn-down khaki collars when in khaki, the officers in other regiments of the Army are not allowed to do so, and why they are compelled to wear stiff stand-up collars either with or without the addition of a stiff linen collar; and whether he could issue Regulations to the effect that all officers may wear the same kind of collars when in khaki as those worn in the Guards?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The pattern of khaki Service dress for officers is now under consideration.

  Territorial Force.
  Colonel BURNasked how many men presented themselves as recruits for the Territorial Force in 1909, 1910, and 1911; of these how many were rejected as medically unfit; whether all men serving in the Territorial Force are examined annually by a medical officer before proceeding to camp for the annual training; how many officers and men were absent without leave from the annual training in 1911; how many of the men have been prosecuted; how many of the officers are
  186

  still serving; and how many men now serving in the Territorial Force have qualified in musketry in 1911?
  Colonel SEELY: There are no statistics available at the War Office of the numbers of men who presented themselves for enlistment or of those who were medically rejected. Men are not examined by a medical officer before proceeding to camp. Forty-one officers and 6,755 non-commissioned officers and men were absent without leave from the annual training in 1911. There is no information at the War Office to show how many of these officers are still serving or how many of the men were prosecuted. As regards musketry figures, I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to refer to the detailed replies given to questions on this subject put by the hon. Member for Canterbury on Monday, the 26th of last month.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question as to how many men now serving have qualified?
  Colonel SEELY: It is all laid down in the Regulations how the men must qualify. They must qualify at full range if possible, and if not at the small ranges.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Does a man get the same certificate in either case?
  Colonel SEELY: I think so, but I should not like to answer all these technical questions. As the Noble Lord knows, the question of ranges is a difficult one.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the Territorial compelled to let off his rifle at all?
  Colonel SEELY: Of course he has to let off his rifle.

  Infantry Reserve.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked what would be the percentage of Reserve men in the ranks of the Infantry of the Guards and in the ranks of the Infantry of the Line, respectively, in the event of six divisions being mobilised for war at once?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not considered expedient to publish the information required.

  Yeomanry (Scotland).
  Captain GILMOURasked what reason has led to the decision that Dunbar will not be available for the purpose of courses of instruction for Yeomanry officers; and what provision will be made for the Yeomanry in Scotland?
  Colonel SEELY: The Cavalry Depot at Dunbar is not open; as soon as it is courses will be held there for Yeomanry officers of the Scottish Command. In the meantime the Cavalry Depot at Dublin will be made use of for the instruction of these officers, but there is no objection to a certain number being instructed at Scarborough, provided the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief concerned can make the necessary arrangements.

  Expeditionary and Territorial Force.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked whether, in the event of a war, in which Great Britain were involved, breaking out on the Continent of Europe, it is contemplated as a possible contingency by the War Office that the Expeditionary Force may be sent oversea before half the period of training of the Territorial Force has been completed?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot undertake within the limits of an answer to a question to deal with a hypothetical point raised on a matter of general policy.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with it in the Debate?
  Colonel SEELY: Certainly; that is the time that will be most convenient for the House.

  Army Horses.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether it is the intention of the Army Council that Army horses should be neither clipped nor groomed during the winter months in order to save the expense of horse rugs; whether the refusal of rugs will involve the additional expense of extra forage, instead of the saving of forage usually effected during the winter months, and will therefore be little real economy; and whether the opinion of commanding officers upon this change of policy is fully proved by the fact that in nearly every case the deficiency of rugs is being made up by the officers out of private sources?
  Colonel SEELY: I am sorry I am not in a position to add anything to the reply I gave the hon. Gentleman on the 28th February.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that this new Regulation imposes a heavy burden upon conscientious officers?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think it can be put in that way. The matter is a difficult one, and if the hon. Gentleman raises
  188
  it in the Debate, I shall be glad to give him full information.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is this the final decision of the War Office or is it still under consideration?
  Colonel SEELY: It is hard to say anything is final in a progressive place like the War Office.

  War Office and National Rifle Association.
  Captain CAMPBELLasked if a subscription is paid out of War Office funds to the National Rifle Association; if so, what is the amount of the subscription; and is such subscription given under certain conditions, and if so, what are those conditions?
  Colonel SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is doubtless alluding to the Grant of £50 for the Secretary of State's Prize at Bisley. This is granted subject to approval of the conditions of the competition to which it is attached. No other conditions are imposed on the association in connection with this Grant or in connection with the assistance given to the association, which consists of a staff for range duties, of a certain number of rifles, and a certain quantity of ammunition, and also of camp equipment.
  Captain CAMPBELL: Is there no Grant at all, unconditional or conditional, out of War Office funds?
  Colonel SEELY: There is no Grant other than that I have explained. There is the £50 and the Grant in kind to which I have referred.

  Belfast Home Rule Meeting (Cost of Troops).
  Mr. GUINNESSasked what Votes will bear the expenses connected with providing troops to preserve order in Belfast on the occasion of the recent visit of the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  Colonel SEELY: The expenses will be borne on Army Votes, mainly Vote 6.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in certain districts collectors of Inland Revenue state that they received special instructions to complete the collection of Income Tax by the middle of February, distraining for this purpose if necessary; whether this is a departure from the practice of previous years; and whether, if

  189
  such instructions have been given, he will consider the advisability of reverting to the practice of previous years, so that hardship may be minimised as far as possible?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Board of Inland Revenue inform me that they know of no special instructions of the nature mentioned by my hon. Friend. If he will bring to my notice any specific case I will have inquiry made.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to adhere to the work of last year, in which the officers were instructed not to collect Income Tax in the year it was due?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There was no instruction not to collect Income Tax.
  Mr. HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman really adhere to that?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, certainly! I said so already in the House.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state what modifications have been introduced into the practice which obtained in the year 1896 as to the remission of Income Tax paid under Schedules A and B by owners farming their own land in cases where such owners have made losses on farming; and what are the instructions to the surveyors now in force in regard to cases of this character?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the hon. Member is aware, the Legislature has, since the year 1907, conceded a lower rate of Income Tax upon earned income, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. In consequence of its being necessary to set off allowances for loss against earned income as far as the earned income admits, repayment of Income Tax cannot be made by remission of the Income Tax charged under Schedule A, which is at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £, until such part of the claimant's income as might otherwise be chargeable at the 9d. rate or 1s. rate has been exhausted. Consequently, in cases where owners farming their own land and assessed to Income Tax Schedule B at the earned income rate claim allowance on the ground of loss, Surveyors of Taxes have been instructed to insist on a statement of aggregate income in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy of the instructions on the Table for the information of that large class of persons who farm their own land?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not clear which instructions the hon. and learned Member means.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I mean the instructions to the surveyors now in force in regard to cases of this character which are referred to in the question.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.

  Budget Statement (Yield of Taxes).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether, except on the occasion of his annual Budget statement, it will in future be impossible for Members of this House to obtain detailed figures as to the yield of the taxes on increment of land, on undeveloped land value, and on reversions, without the inclusion among them of the yield of the duty on mineral rights; and why the Treasury insist upon so concealing the yield of these three taxes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The position will be just the same in the future as it has been in the past. I have already explained that it is a long-established practice of Chancellors of the Exchequer of both political parties not to anticipate their annual financial statements by announcing before the close of the financial year the yield of individual taxes. So far from this practice being based on a desire to conceal the yield of the Land Values Duties, those duties provide the single instance of a recent departure from it.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not in order to conceal the deficiency of the Land Taxes that the more fruitful Mineral Duty is brought in?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—he was present I think during the Debates on the Budget—I introduced the Mineral Duty as part of the Land Taxes; it was treated as part of the controversy on the Land Taxes.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Did not the right hon. Gentleman estimate separately in his Budget for the Land Taxes and the Mineral Duties?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly! and I have not the faintest doubt the same practice will be followed when I am making my statement for the coming year.
  Mr. CASSEL: Were these duties not introduced originally as duties on undeveloped minerals?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, certainly! This is an improved method of collecting the same taxes.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give me information in reply to questions of a different nature?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really I cannot carry in my memory all the questions of the hon. Member.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: When we ask these questions the dates have been given and it is only when it began to be very evident that the—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a statement.

  Castle Howard Mabuse.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the picture by Mabuse recently sold by Lady Carlisle to the Trustees of the National Gallery formed part of a collection of pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, works of art, or other things not yielding income bequeathed to her by the late Lord Carlisle, and appearing to the Treasury to be of national, or historic, or artistic interest; and, if so, what was the total principal value of such collection; whether the rate of duty chargeable in respect of the said picture should be calculated at the rate appropriate to the total principal value of the said collection; and whether the duty which was in fact charged in respect of the said picture was at the rate appropriate to the total principal value of the said collection or at the rate appropriate to the value of the said picture?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no information that any article of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest, other than the picture by Mabuse, was bequeathed to Lady Carlisle by the late Lord Carlisle. The remainder of the hon. Member's question therefore does not arise.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really, that is hardly the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is it not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to collect the proper duty and make inquiries to enable him to do so?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, and that is done. But it is not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into the private and personal affairs of anybody.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether any valuation was made by or on behalf of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, under Section 7, Sub-sections (5) and (8), of the Finance Act, 1894, of the picture by Mabuse recently sold to the Trustees of the National Gallery by Lady Carlisle, and, if so, what was the amount of such valuation; whether the value of the picture was between £50,000 and £60,000 more than the sum received for it by Lady Carlisle; and whether he will state how the Death Duty of £2,776 charged in respect of such picture was arrived at, and, in particular, at what rate such duty was charged and what the value of the picture was taken to be for the purpose of calculating such duty?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No valuation of the picture by Mabuse, by or on behalf of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, was made, but their expert was satisfied that its value was substantially over the £40,000 paid for it. In the circumstances Death Duties were charged on this sum only, as representing such part of the total value as was not in the nature of a gift. The £2,776 represents Estate Duty at 6 per cent. upon £40,000—namely, £2,400—and Legacy Duty at 1 per cent. upon £37,600 (being the £40,000, less the amount of the Estate Duty), namely, £376.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Why was not duty charged upon the full value of the picture?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member had listened to the answer, he would have heard the explanation.

  Agricultural Light Railways.
  Mr. ROWNTREEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether his attention has been called to the development of agricultural light railways in Belgium and other countries since 1886; whether he will be prepared to appoint a small committee to report as to what steps it would be necessary to take to establish

  193
  in this country an effective system of agricultural light railways; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the small development of agricultural light railways under the Light Railways Act of 1896, and whether the Commissioners appointed under that Act have reported to him as to the causes of the comparative failure of the Act to develop agricultural light railways in this country?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Board of Trade are fully acquainted with the position of light railways in Belgium, and I do not think that the appointment of a Committee such as that suggested by my hon. Friend would serve any very useful purpose. The Light Railway Commissioners have from time to time in their annual reports referred to the question of the comparatively slow development of agricultural light railways in this country, and I hope that the Light Railways Bill which I introduced last week will facilitate the promotion of light railway undertakings.

  Tobacco Cultivation (England and Scotland).
  Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state what means, if any, are being taken to promote the cultivation and cure of tobacco in England and Scotland?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I understand that the Development Commissioners have set on foot inquiries to enable them to judge to what extent it is desirable that Grants should be made out of the Development Fund for the promotion of experiments in tobacco cultivation, and in the meantime the Treasury have sanctioned the Grant of an allowance equal to one-third of the duty paid on the actual weight of tobacco brought to charge during a period of three years in cases in which authority has been given for the institution of such experiments by private individuals in England and Scotland under Section 83 (4) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
  Mr. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to press on the consideration of this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; I believe the Development Commissioners are making inquiries now.
  Mr. STANIER: Is the Board of Agriculture recommending the Development Commissioners to do so?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has not arisen in that form. The Commissioners are making inquiries now, and when they have completed their inquiries the Board of Agriculture will take the matter up.

  Swine Fever, Sprotborough.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the hardship imposed upon Mr. Dodson, of Sprot-borough, near Doncaster, by the action of the Board in imposing eight months' quarantine upon his pigs owing to suspicion of swine fever; whether he is aware that during the whole of the eight months not one single case of swine fever occurred among them; and whether, in view of the doubt as to whether any swine fever had ever existed on the premises, any compensation can be made to Mr. Dodson for his pecuniary loss owing to a possible mistake of the Board's officials?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member has not been correctly informed as to the facts of this case. The restrictions referred to were imposed on the 9th February, 1911, and removed on the 9th October last. A post-mortem examination made on the 15th February of a pig which had died on the premises revealed incontestable evidence of the existence of swine fever, and the police reports show that thirteen pigs died on the infected place between the 16th February and the 15th May. These pigs were not examined; but it is at least probable that their death was attributable to the same cause. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest veterinary expert in Europe will not admit the latency of this disease beyond three months? It is admitted that these pigs were under suspicion for five months at least.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have already pointed out, thirteen pigs died at various dates between February and May.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: But none between May and October.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that swine fever was not actually verified, and there was only the opinion of the local

  195
  medical officer? Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that this man has lost something like £300, will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry into the whole case?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have inquired into the case very fully, and I do not think Mr. Dodson has any cause for complaint.

  Mullah.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Mullah in Somaliland is preparing an attack on Berbera or on the friendly natives; and what troops have been sent to assure the safety of our zone of occupation in that country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no reason for supposing that the Mullah is preparing an attack on Berbera, but one of the periodic skirmishes between him and the Friendlies has recently taken place. These skirmishes, as the hon. Member may be aware, are sometimes a success for the dervishes and sometimes for the Friendlies. On the present occasion, however, the dervishes have been more than usually successful, and it has been considered advisable, as a measure of precaution, to strengthen the garrison at Berbera by some 300 men from Aden.
  Mr. FELL: Is there any proposal to extend our present zone of occupation of these operations?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Certainly not.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Mullah has recovered from his last "death"?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I believe the report was grossly exaggerated.

  Somali Colony in London.
  Mr. FELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the colony of Somalis established in Central London; if they left Aden with his permission; what is the object of their visit; and are they to be sent back shortly?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I presume that the question refers to an exhibition of Somalis which has, I understand, recently been opened in London. I have no knowledge of the arrangements which have been made, but I will make inquiry on the subject.

  Hire-Purchase System.
  BARON de FORESTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the consequences of the hire-purchase system, particularly among the poorer classes of the population; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation making the sale of goods under that system illegal?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I do not think that it would be feasible to prohibit the sale of goods on the hire-purchase system. It is often a most convenient arrangement for people who have not been able to save money, and I understand that advantage is taken of it by purchasers of well-known literary works. The system, if harshly administered, may no doubt become oppressive to poor people, but few complaints have reached the police.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the large colliery and iron companies use this system for the purchase of railway waggons?
  Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of it. It is a very interesting fact.

  Non-Attendance at School (Fines and Costs).
  Captain FABERasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state whether Circular A 52,150 of 23rd March. 1891, holds good, which states that where a fine inflicted does not exceed 5s. an order cannot be made for costs in the case of non-attendance at school?
  Mr. McKENNA: The circular in question drew attention to Section 8 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which prohibits costs being imposed in cases where the fine does not exceed 5s. unless the Court thinks fit expressly to order otherwise. The law on this point remains the same as in 1891. That circular did not, however, refer to cases of non-attendance at school, because in these cases the penalty, including costs, was then limited by law to a maximum of 5s. This provision was amended by the Elementary Education Act of 1900 which raised the maximum to 20s.
  Captain FABER: Are we to understand that it is in the discretion of the bench whether they inflict a fine or costs or not?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think so.

  Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the recent closing, under The Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, of a beerhouse, the Burton Arms, situate at 432, Attercliffe Road, Sheffield, and to the announcement that the same premises are to be opened on 12th March as a non-political working men's club; and whether he is prepared to support the Control and Supervision of Clubs Bill now before the House, which would prevent the closing of public-houses being rendered nugatory in this way?
  Mr. McKENNA: The case in question is an instance of the occurrences with which certain provisions which found a place in the Government Licensing Bill of 1908 and now appear in the hon. Member's Bill were designed to deal—I mean, those conferring on justices power to refuse the registration of a club. I am in favour of those provisions, but cannot undertake in answer to a question to express any general opinion on the hon. Member's Bill.

  Osborne College (Outbreak of Infectious Diseases).
  Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are at present at Osborne College two cases of typhoid fever, two of bronchitis, one of pneumonia, and one of diphtheria; whether there are in the college altogether seventy people on the sick list; and, if so, what steps are being taken to prevent the various diseases from spreading?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): There were thirty-two cases of boys under medical treatment at Osborne College on 3rd March, 1912. Of these, one was a case of enteric fever, now convalescing; three cases of pneumonia; one of chicken-pox. The remaining twenty-seven are minor diseases and injuries. There were no cases of diphtheria or bronchitis.

  Admiralty Yacht "Enchantress."
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether port admiral yachts have been abolished and in future the admirals are to have an allowance; whether, on the recent occasion when the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" was in commission, the Lords of the Admiralty sent the ship round to the different ports visited, travelling themselves by train to meet her; whether he is aware that
  198
  the Admiralty yacht mainly serves the purposes of an hotel; and whether, in the interests of public economy, he can see his way to deal with the Admiralty yacht in the same manner as with the yachts of the port admirals?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I have carefully considered the general question of the Admiralty yacht, and have come to the conclusion that it should be retained. It is desirable, in the public interest, that the visits of the Board of Admiralty to the ports and to the Fleets should be frequent, and that members of the Board, particularly the First Lord himself as the Parliamentary head, should have opportunities of seeing things with their own eyes, and of getting to know and keeping in touch with officers in the dockyards and the seagoing Fleets. Such an association is of real value, and the facilities afforded by the Admiralty yacht play an important part in it. It stands on a wholly different footing from the yachts of the port admirals, which have been abolished, for the port admirals reside at the centre of their local commands, while the Board of Admiralty have the whole of the establishments of the Navy to inspect. The Admiralty yacht becomes a hospital ship in time of war, and her crew join the Fleet on mobilisation. In these circumstances, therefore, I do not recommend that any change should be made. I know nothing of the other matters referred to by the hon. Member and set out so fully in his question, and they do not appear to me to be of public importance even if they were true.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost of the yacht annually to the State?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Frequent returns have been made, but I cannot answer that question off-hand.
  Viscount WOLMER: Is it not a fact that port admirals also have to visit the Fleet at sea?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I think it will be found the yacht is hardly ever used for that purpose.

  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Mr. DELANYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) who has been appointed to succeed the late Arthur Owen as the Department's inspector of fairs in the Queen's County;

  199
  what qualifications has the person appointed for the position; what are the nature of his duties; and the amount of his salary?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland, Mr. T. W. Russell): The late Mr. Arthur Owen was Reporter (not Inspector) of Prices for Fairs held in the counties of Carlow, Kildare, Kilkenny, Queen's, Wexford, and Wicklow. On his death the district was allotted amongst four new Reporters, and the reports of prices at the fairs in Queen's County, with others, have since been furnished by one of these—Mr. John Mahon, Ardnahue, Carlow. Before appointing the four Reporters referred to, the Department satisfied themselves, by careful inquiries and by personal interviews, that from training and experience these gentlemen were fully competent to perform the duties of Reporters. The Reporters have to attend selected fairs held at various centres in the counties mentioned above and to supply to the Department a report for each fair, stating the main features as regards supplies and prices, the numbers of live stock at different ages and classes offered for sale and sold, and also the lowest, highest, and average prices obtained. Each of these Reporters is paid a fee of £20 a year, and is allowed second-class travelling expenses.

  King Edward VII. Memorial.
  Colonel BURNasked the hon. Member for the East Dorset Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether anything has been decided as to a site for the King Edward VII. memorial; and when will an opportunity be given for a full discussion in this House before anything is definitely settled?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Captain Guest): As has already been stated the Committee has recommended that the statue of King Edward VII. should be placed in the grass vista which leads from Piccadilly to the Queen Victoria Memorial. A model will be exhibited in the Tea Room as soon as it is completed. The question of discussion may perhaps be allowed to stand over until the model has been shown.
  Captain MURRAY: Are we to understand a definite decision has been made in this matter?
  Captain GUEST: I would ask for notice of that question.
  Earl WINTERTON: Shall we have a chance in this House of discussing the matter before the Committee's decision is binding upon the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will answer that question. Yes.
  Captain MURRAYasked the hon. Member for the East Dorset Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can indicate the position of the sites for the King Edward Memorial statue that have recently been under the consideration of the King Edward Memorial Committee?
  Captain GUEST: This seems to be a question which should be addressed to Sir Thomas Vezey Strong, the chairman of the Mansion House Committee, who will no doubt be able to give the hon. Member the information desired.
  Captain MURRAY: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me how I can address this question to Sir Thomas Vezey Strong?
  Lord BALCARRES: Will the hon. Gentleman be so good as to say if Sir Thomas Vezey Strong has any right to recommend this statue to be placed in a Royal Park without the assent of the Office of Works?
  Captain GUEST: The answer is in the negative.

  Universal Compulsory Military Training.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it has been found impossible to recruit the Territorial Force up to the numbers laid down by the Government and that even the insufficient numbers of the Force could not be relied on in a sudden emergency till after several months of training, he could see his way to agree with the Leader of the Opposition to make universal compulsory military training a non-party question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that, although the Secretary of State for War told the Territorials they would be prepared to die for their country, the Government is not even willing to give the country a chance of deciding whether they will adopt the only plan—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the occasion for the hon. Member to make a speech.

  State-aided Education.
  Mr. HADDOCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the congestion, of school curriculum and the dissatisfaction and friction which exist at the present time between the local and central authorities on the question of education, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission to report on the present position of State-aided education and to make recommendations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to admit that there exists any such dissatisfaction and friction as the hon. Member suggests, and I see no occasion for the appointment of a Commission.

  Mail Car Mail Service (West of Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Postmaster-General whether he can explain his reasons for discontinuing the mail car service between Ballymote and Tubbercurry, and substituting therefor the services of an ordinary rural postman; whether he is aware that the traders of Tubbercurry and the general public are inconvenienced by the change; and whether, seeing that Tubbercurry is one of the most important trading towns of the West of Ireland, he will consider the advisability of reverting to the old mail car service?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The mail car by which the day mails were conveyed between Tubbercurry and Ballymote was discontinued in order to improve the postal services of the district. Tubbercurry obtains better postal communication with Sligo, the chief town of the district, and as the day mail dispatch is now at 1.0 p.m. instead of 8.30 a.m., there is ample time for replying to letters received by the first delivery.

  New Schools in Single-School Areas.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether the whole of the £100,000 voted in the Appropriation Act of 1907 for the provision of new schools in single-school areas has been spent; if not, what part of it; and whether he will state the places in which the schools have been built?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With reference to the second part of the question, payments
  202
  amounting to £58,482 16s. 6d. have been made in respect of special Grants for the building of new public elementary schools. With reference to the last part of the question, there is nothing to add to a statement published by the Board of Education in 1910 (Cd. 5, 155), and to an answer given to the hon. Member for the Wilton Division on the 17th August last, copies of which I am sending the hon. Member.

  Port of London Authority (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Port of London Authority has refused to insert a Fair-Wages Clause in its contracts; and whether he can take any steps in the matter with the object of inducing the authority to insert such a Clause in all future contracts?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am informed by the Port of London Authority that the statement that they have refused to insert a Fair-Wages Clause in their contracts is not correct, and that they propose to discuss the subject at an early date.

  British Merchant Ships (Census of Seamen).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Census of seamen serving on British ships was taken by the Board of Trade on 1st April, 1911; and, if so, whether a Return of the particulars has yet been completed; and, if not, whether he will expedite the preparation of the Return?
  Mr. BUXTON: The next Census Return to be published will relate to 3rd April, 1911, but owing to the continued absence of many vessels under agreements opened before that date, it is considered desirable to continue enumeration for at least one year. The actual preparation of the Return cannot therefore be begun until next month, and it is not anticipated that it can be published before July or August next.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Bridget Robinson for reinstatement in the holding from which she was evicted on the Adam White estate, Dromahair, county Leitrim; and, if so, what decision has been arrived at?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners received an application from Miss Bridget Robinson for reinstatement in a holding of about one acre on the White estate, county Leitrim. Her application does not come within the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, and the Commissioners have not taken any action in the matter.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the applications of John Croal, of Ardagh, and Patrick Meehan, of Shasgar, evicted tenants on the Johnston estate, Kinlough, county Leitrim, for a Grant to enable them to stock their farms and rebuild their houses; and, if not, will they soon be considered, as these tenants require a start?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not received any applications for reinstatement from John Croal and Patrick Meehan, who have signed agreements for the purchase under the Land Purchase Acts of their holdings, of which they are in occupation, on the Johnston estate, county Leitrim, direct from the owner. The Commissioners do not propose to sanction free Grants to these tenants.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked what progress, if any, the Congested Districts Board have made with regard to the purchase of the Marsham, West, and Benison estates, Ballinaglera, county Leitrim?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that the estates of George Marsham and W. H. West in the Union of Carrick-on-Shannon, county Leitrim, have been inspected and the question of making offers for purchase will probably be considered by the Board at their meeting next week. In May, 1911, the Board gave their consent to a direct sale from the landlord to the tenants of the estate of J. J. Benison, county Leitrim.

  Sea Fisheries (By-Laws).
  Mr. MILDMAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in order to obviate the possibility that matters of grave importance to the future of those employed in the sea-fishing industry may be discussed without their cognisance, he will consider the desirability of varying
  204
  Regulation 4 of the Sea Fisheries Regulations with respect to the making of bylaws, so that in future notice of the intention of the Sea Fisheries Committees to consider any new by-law shall be locally advertised prior to such consideration by the committees, instead of local advertisement being deferred, in accordance with the present regulations, until after the bylaw has been passed by the Sea Fisheries Committees, and confirmation of the same by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is about to be sought; and whether, in addition to advertisement in the local newspapers, he will, by regulation, require notice of such intention to consider new by-laws to be posted with Board of Trade notices in the fishing centres?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Under the existing Regulations notice of the intention to propose a new by-law must be sent to each member of the Fisheries Committee concerned, on which the fishermen are represented. The advertisement of every such proposal would involve considerable cost, and, having regard to the fact that a considerable proportion of them may prove abortive and that the by-law, if made, may assume a different shape from that originally proposed, I doubt whether it would serve any useful purpose. Notice of the intention to apply for the confirmation of a new by-law when made must be advertised in two consecutive weeks, and the notice must include a description of the purport of the by-law. I have received no evidence to show that these requirements do not sufficiently safeguard the interests of all concerned.
  Mr. MILDMAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received information lately that a particular by-law largely affecting fishermen was discussed without their knowledge at all?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no means of knowing if it was discussed without the knowledge of the people concerned, but there is no power of passing a by-law without full inquiry, and that, of course, will be held.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

  RIVER TWEED FISHERIES.
  This day fortnight, to call attention to the law governing the fisheries of the River Tweed, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir J. Barran.]
  To call attention to the question of the medical inspection of school children, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Brace.]
  To call attention to the necessity for Poor Law reform, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. B. Lyttelton.]

BILLS PRESENTED.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKS BILL.
  "To provide for the marking of all imported meat and Agricultural Produce, and for the registration of dealers in such meat." Presented by Mr. BARNSTON; supported by Mr. Laurence Hardy, Sir Thomas Courtenay Warner, Sir Luke White, Mr. Brace, Mr. Courthope, and Mr. Stanier; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
  NATIONALISATION OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS BILL.
  "To provide for the Nationalisation of Railways and Canals." Presented by Mr. WILLIAM THORNE; supported by Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. James Parker, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Jowett, and Mr. Gill; to be read a second time upon Friday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the ascertainment of Land Values in Scotland; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. DUNDAS WHITE; supported by Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Barnes, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Charles Price, Mr. Watt, Colonel Greig, Mr. Godfrey Collins, Mr. MacCallum Scott, and Mr. Millar; to be read a second time upon Monday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]
SUPPLY.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [Monday, 4th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am much obliged to (Earl Winterton) for having ceded to me the place in the Debate which he obtained by moving the Adjournment of the House last night. I
  206
  should like as one who has had to attempt the task on several occasions in years gone by to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the way in which he introduced the Army Estimates for the first time. Having said that I must pass to criticism, and I must pass on rapidly, because many of my hon. Friends wish, and are fully entitled, to take part in this general Debate. When I speak of criticism I am not thinking so much of criticism of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made as of criticism of the case which he had perforce to put forward in the absence of a better one. The right hon. Gentleman, in common with his predecessors—and no doubt his successors—had to state this case. He had to show the House that the Government which he represents is making good progress with their plan for national security in so far as our land forces are concerned, and, if he could, to hold out reasonable hope that that process would soon be completed. That was his case, which we all know in the present year of grace was not a very easy one to substantiate. I was not, therefore, surprised to find that he adorned the main body of his speech with two accretions: he appended a long—not too long—and interesting passage on aviation, or mechanical flying. On that point I do not propose to say anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) is far more competent than I am to speak about that, and it is a subject on which none but experts should speak. I may, perhaps, make this brief comment: that apparently we are not now in a position to spend profitably more than half what Germany or a third of what France is spending. That is the assumption I make. I cannot assume if the Government could spend more money profitably they would restrict the amount to the relatively small sum which appears in the Estimates.
  The right hon. Gentleman prefixed to the main body of his speech a reply to a passage from the speech which the Leader of the Opposition delivered recently in the Albert Hall. That part of his speech was conceived in a more controversial tone than we detected in the main body of his speech. As the Oriental writer said, "He made the horse of his eloquence caper upon the plain of reproach." We have heard the reply of the Leader of the Opposition and we are well content to leave it at that. Our complacency was undisturbed by the interesting contribution of the hon. Member

  207
  for Sunderland. Indeed, I thought the hon. Member's suggestion of automatic artillery somewhat enhanced it.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I asked the question whether the Leader of the Opposition or Lord Roberts suggested that the Artillery should be automatic. I did not state that there was such a thing as automatic artillery in this country, and I think the right hon. Gentleman does me less than the usual justice he does to an opponent when he says I suggested anything about automatic artillery.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I was perhaps drawn too far, but I hope the hon. Member, who has shot with me in a team, will agree I am the last person to do an injustice to an opponent. His intervention will not however lure me into elaborating a case in which we claim absolute victory by reason of the replies we have got from the right hon. Gentleman. The scientific contribution of the right hon. Gentleman, if measured by the OFFICIAL REPORT, exceeded enormously the whole amount of the speech which he devoted to the case in which we as a nation are interested—the progress that has been made with their plan for security, or our national safety. We do not complain of the additions and we do not complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman treated the substantive part of his case, but I think we may say he did work some of his materials very hard. I will illustrate that by the way in which he worked the Army Reserve. Speaking on Friday on the Expeditionary Force, he said:—
  "There has been steady progress made."
  He then made a comparison with four years ago—in order to avoid any political complexion, and he said:—
  "The numbers available for the Expeditionary Force with the Reserves are 50,000 greater than was the case four years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1912, col. 62.]
  So he brings in the Army Reserve in aid of the Expeditionary Force. When he came to the Special Reserve, he said:—
  "In the Special Reserve there is a real shortage."
  Again the Army Reserve is brought in aid. He said:—
  "I would ask the House not to think that this is a very dangerous matter, for, as I have shown, the Expeditionary Force has got a reserve adequate to its need for a long time to come."
  He has to use the same material over and over again, and that shows he is very hard put to it. How can he seriously tell the House that the Army Reserve is going
  208
  to be available for every purpose for a long time to come? The point is that, by an automatic process, the Army Reserve in the very near future is going to drop by 30,000 or more below its present strength and 10,000 below the normal strength which the Government think necessary in order that it should do its part in the whole of the machine. I think I am entitled to say that the comparisons of the right hon. Gentleman and the consolations which he asks us to derive from the Army Reserve are not very illuminating.
  In this we have to look a little bit further ahead, and in doing so we must realise that the lowest point in the decline of the Army Reserve will coincide, or nearly coincide, with the moment of greatest anxiety for the Territorial Forces. He has himself said that the engagement of 80,000 of the men in the Territorial Forces will come to an end in the near future. Let us hope they will be re-engaged. We do not know whether they will or not. Looking ahead, I find that the Reserves must go down and at the same time the Territorial Force may lose many of its existing numbers. I think he has a very difficult case to make, and here again is an illustration. I do not mean to indulge in any polemical comparison between the Army as it is and the Army as it was when my right hon. Friend and my Friends behind me were responsible for it, but these comparisons are necessary when we see a steady decrease of many thousands in a portion of our Army, and when in front of us there is a gradual decrease in the numbers we shall possess. For my part I forego, and deliberately forego, any polemical advantage I could make, and I think I could make some, from comparing what we may call "our Army" with "the Government's Army," for in the speculative region concerning such matters as where our Army may have to fight and what are the troops against which it may have to fight one thing is certain, the Territorial Forces will never have to fight the old Volunteers, the Special Reserve will never have to fight the old Militia, the Expeditionary Force will never have to fight the 150,000 Regular soldiers whom we sent out of this country to South Africa to fight there. I waive all that, and I say that the gravity of the prospective decline in some branches of the forces for which the Government are responsible is a matter which we have to consider, and in attempting to consider that we have one subject of regret, of very great regret—I regret

  209
  that the Army Estimates have been introduced before the Navy Estimates. I thought it had become a matter of agreement between both political parties that it was impossible adequately to discuss the policy of the Government in respect to the land forces unless we were in full possession of the policy of the Government in respect to the Navy, and I think that to fall back into what I may call the slovenly habit of introducing the Army Estimates before the Navy Estimates comes with a worse grace from a Government many of whose supporters tell us that the Navy is all in all, and that those who urge that something more is needed for our Army are not legitimately entitled to criticise the provision they make in respect to our land forces.
  But there is one matter for congratulation. No difference, I believe, in principle divides the Government and the Opposition in respect to the objects which we have as a nation to achieve if we wish as a nation to be safe and to preserve our place amongst the great Powers of the world. That is a matter for congratulation if it be so, and I think it is so. In order to prove that it is so I hope the House will boar with me whilst I quote a succinct passage from the words of the Secretary of State for War (Lord Haldane). I am not going to quote from one of his speeches. The right hon. Gentleman (the Under-Secretary for War) modestly disclaimed any power on his part to emulate the voluminous lucidity of his chief. I am going to quote from the considered, written, printed words of Lord Haldane, which are to be found on page 11 of his introduction to the book on "Compulsory Service":—
  "It is that, first in the order of importance comes sea power, backed up not only by adequate oversea garrisons but by an expeditionary Army, kept at home in time of peace, but so organised that it is ready for immediate transport by the fleet to distant scenes of action, and is capable of there maintaining long campaigns with the least possible dislocation of the social life of the nation."
  I think I may say that the Opposition do not differ from the Government in principle as to that being a succinct and accurate account of the objects which we as a nation have got to achieve if we as a nation are to contemplate the future with any sense of security. The Navy first, and then the oversea garrisons. I make no complaint that in his speech yesterday the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned the oversea garrisons, and yet they have an importance, a grave importance.
  On page 24 of the Estimates anyone can see the present distribution of our over-
  210
  sea garrisons, and, with some exceptions, there has been no reason in the past to criticise that distribution, because I freely admit that this party is largely responsible for it. But we cannot live in the past. Look at the East. We have—for good reasons at the time—withdrawn our Fleet from the Pacific Ocean, and apart from political considerations, although they have a great bearing upon it, and quite apart from the growth of Japan as a mighty Power, quite apart from the recent and somewhat more rude awakening of China, apart from the views entertained by our fellow-countrymen in Australasia on the question of Asiatic immigration, the mere fact that the fleet is not now in the Pacific does raise the question whether one battalion in Hong Kong, one battalion in Singapore, and one battalion in Ceylon is a sufficient garrison in respect to the East. Turning from the East we look to the South, and perhaps I may remind the House that we have in recent years questioned the adequacy of four battalions, with a detachment at Cyprus, to garrison Egypt. We questioned that and here we cannot dismiss politics from our minds. After the period of acute diplomatic tension which arose from the question of Morocco, in the presence of a war between a European country and a Moslem Power in Tripoli, it is impossible to dismiss from our minds political considerations when we look at the South and are considering the garrisons in the Mediterranean; and we do not know, because the Naval Estimates have not been introduced, whether there is or is not going to be any modification of naval policy in respect to the Mediterranean. We have seen already a great withdrawal of naval power from the Mediterranean. There is a rumour abroad that concentration is going to be made greater at Gibraltar. It may or may not be so, but whether it is so or not two battalions at Gibraltar, five at Malta, and only four in Egypt is a distribution of our oversea garrison which demands further consideration, and careful and cautious consideration, by this House. Nor does that exhaust the situation. If we look to the West and anticipate the future, we know that the Panama Canal will soon be a fact, and a world-changing fact, in all questions of trade. It may have been right to reduce the West Indian garrison, for which we were responsible, before the Panama Canal was a fact. Is it wise to have one battalion at Bermuda only, after the Panama Canal has become a fact of world-wide importance? I do not want to

  211
  labour that part of the case, but it is a part of the case which has to be considered.
  In this matter of oversea garrisons, history repeats itself. The balance of power changes, and sometimes modern changes reveal that the great strategists of the past, like Oliver Cromwell and the sailors and soldiers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, knew very well what they were about, and the need arises not only to strengthen the garrisons you have, but sometimes to replace garrisons that you have withdrawn under conditions which no longer continue. The other observation which I must make, and to which I should like to have the assent of the whole House, is that, whatever happens, seventy-four battalions of Infantry, is the very minimum total garrison for this oversea work. That is all there are—seventy-four at home and seventy-four abroad, and of these fifty-two are in India, and only twenty-two remain for all this work of oversea garrison. If I may give an example, it is with our Empire very much as in the case of a beleagured city like Ladysmith; if the perimeter is very large, a small garrison can go to one part if pressure comes there, and to another part if pressure comes there, but you cannot reduce that garrison. So it is with us. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may contemplate, and I do not see why they should not, the possibility in the near future of withdrawing some of the six battalions of Infantry now in South Africa and one at Mauritius. It depends a great deal upon the progress made in South Africa with the patriotic intention of adopting national service there, but this is certain, that any one of these battalions which may be borrowed from South Africa in the future is wanted elsewhere, and that the total of seventy-four may not in the near future be adequate to the requirements of the perimeter of our worldwide oceanic Empire. And what of Simonstown? I do not believe you will be able to withdraw the whole of your South African garrison or any large part of it while Simonstown continues to be what it is, an important Imperial Naval base. However, that by the way.
  I now come to the next portion of our defence, the Expeditionary Force. I hope and believe that there is no difference in principle between the Government and the Opposition in respect to the objects which this Expeditionary Force has to
  212
  achieve—a very different question from whether it can achieve them—but if we are agreed as to the objects it has to achieve, then there is so much common ground between us, and, I hope, between all patriotic men in this country. The Expeditionary Force is the pivot of the whole plan of our defence in so far as the land forces are concerned. Everything else turns upon it. The Navy cannot be an effective weapon unless the Expeditionary Force is ready to start. That is the proposition which I lay down, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to support it by quoting once more a considered utterance of his chief. This is Lord Haldane:—
  "To make the Navy an effective weapon we require a military instrument capable of being used in conjunction with it. This must not be a mere force for home defence. The true strategical foundation of all adequate defensive preparations is the power of rapidly assuming the offensive, of striking wherever the blow will be most effective—it may he at some distant point in the enemy's organisation."
  Again, no difference of opinion in principle divides the Government and the Opposition. But have we got that effective instrument, and how do we get it? We are prepared to accept that definition of objects. Do the supporters of the Government accept it, because if they do it is no longer open to them to meet legitimate criticism on our part of any portion of their plan in respect of the land forces by saying after all it is the Navy that matters. If the Navy is big enough, nothing else need concern us, and if it is not big enough we shall soon be starved into surrender. That argument must be abandoned in the House, and I hope ultimately on the platform. The Expeditionary Force is a weapon which is necessary if the Navy is to be effective for the defence of this, country. I think the supporters of the Government must abandon the plea that, in view of the many calls which have to be met, £28,000,000 is the outside sum which can, under any circumstances, be devoted to our land forces. For the sake of argument, though only for the sake of argument, I will grant that under the admirable advice which the Government can obtain from eminent soldiers, they are spending that money in the very best way. If by that expenditure they cannot make every part of their plan complete for its purpose, and adjust the plans inter se in the relationship which secures success for the whole, they will have to spend more money, and to come frankly to the House and say that more money is required if the nation is to be safe. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticise, and I, for

  213
  one, respectfully but firmly demur to the suggestion that the scope of our criticism is to be limited either by a sum like £28,000,000 or by the fear of being charged with a partisan spirit or a lack of patriotism if we point out, what everyone knows, that our plan is not perfect and is not complete in many of its most important branches.
  4.0 P.M.
  The Opposition are more free to criticise than the supporters of the Government. In us revives that ancient liberty which used to characterise the whole House, and, if we abandon it, it is gone from the whole House. Again, the Opposition are less responsible. We can point out defects which exist and which the Government are almost bound to gloss over, because our words over the cable will not carry that commotion into Europe which might attach to similar words if they were used by the Government, and whether they say they have the best rifle in the world, or whether they say the Special Reserve is exactly the kind of force with which you could make good the wastage of a war within a fortnight of its declaration, I claim that the Opposition are not only entitled to discount remarks of that incurable optimism of the Secretary of State for War, but they are entitled to assert for their part what they believe to be true in these matters without being charged with a lack of patriotism. Above all, I say now is the time. Last summer we went through what I described, in the most colourless words I could find, as an acute period of diplomatic tension. Well that tension is relaxed, but it may become acute again. Is it not better to look into this matter now instead of waiting until it may become acute. We have still a naval superiority which is relatively greater than some of us think it will be in the near future, when the pre-"Dreadnought" type of ship has become obsolete. At any rate, we cannot count in four or five years' time, after what has happened in the abandonment of the two-Power standard, that our naval superiority will be relatively as incontestable as it is at the present moment.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Why not?
  Mr. WYNDHAM: We cannot count upon it because of the experience of the past. We cannot say that our naval superiority will be as great in four or five years' time just as we know that it is not so great now as it was four years ago. It is obvious
  214
  that if a great and rich Power is building against you for the supremacy of the sea, unless you share the incurable optimism of the Secretary of State for War, you will think it better to take stock of your land forces now than at a time when you are no longer in the enjoyment of that naval superiority.
  Colonel SEELY: I must not be taken as assenting to that doctrine in the least. It is in direct contradiction of the doctrine of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree with anything from which he dissents, but he cannot contradict the statement I have made. We now claim to have a naval superiority which I say cannot be relatively so great in respect of the Fleets of other Powers in the future as it has been in the past.
  Colonel SEELY: I deny that.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I will ride the other horse. You do not deny that the period of diplomatic tension is relaxed, and that that not only affords an opportunity but ample justification for scrupulously investigating every part of the plan of your land defence, carefully examining it, and candidly admitting its defects, if defects can be discovered. Is the plan complete? I would like to quote what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday in respect of the Expeditionary Force. His remarks as to the Expeditionary Force were almost cryptic in their obscurity. He said:—
  "I have made a comparison with the year 1908, so as to avoid any idea that I was comparing it with the Expeditionary Force of the late Government, I find that the numbers available without Reserves are over 10,000 greater than they were four years ago, and that the numbers available for the Expeditionary Force with the Reserves are 50,000 greater than was the case four years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 19l2, col. 62.]
  I do not know what he means. There is no mystery about the Expeditionary Force. It is supposed to consist of a Cavalry division of twelve regiments, six divisions of Infantry, Artillery, and auxiliary arms. We know that there are enough Cavalry regiments in the country to send twelve. We know that there are enough Infantry battalions to send from seventy-two to seventy-four Line battalions and eight battalions of Guards. But what is the use of telling us that the numbers available are 10,000 more than four years ago. Do you mean to say that four years ago you could not have sent an Expeditionary Force, or are you stating succinctly the argument of the Secretary of State for War that

  215
  unless you have ammunition columns and all the last new inventions you could not send away your soldiers at all? Our contention is that new subjects of expense must be added and not substituted for having the men ready to go who were ready to go in the past. Really we ought to know whether, when the Government speak, as Lord Haldane has written, they mean that six divisions and a Cavalry division could go, or that four divisions and part of a Cavalry division could go. We want to know which they mean. It is very important. Throughout the whole country there has been a great deal of rumour and discussion as to what, I will not say would have happened, but what would happen if diplomatic tension went beyond the point indicated by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last summer. Could six divisions go and a Cavalry division? We do not think so. If they cannot, then your plan is not complete. I do not say on this point that your plan cannot be made complete. These are the two questions we have to consider. Is the plan complete? and if not, can it be made complete? If not, what then is the duty of patriotic men? I say their duty is to make the plan complete. It can be done by increased cost. In respect of the Expeditionary Force it is not complete, but I think that, perhaps, it might be possible to complete it.
  I may say a word in passing on the Cavalry division. I will come to the question of horses later on. The military correspondent of the "Times" and many others, have suggested that we could make our Expeditionary Force more effective if instead of an unwieldy Cavalry division of twelve regiments we could get back some regiments from South Africa where there are four, and have two Cavalry divisions of nine regiments each. I do not go into the other suggestions. All those who have studied the question will agree with me that to send eighteen regiments of Cavalry, relieve the Infantry who give some of their best officers and men to the Mounted Infantry, would be an effective contribution in a campaign. I would ask the Government to consider whether the plan cannot be made more complete by some such device as that, and particularly I would ask them to reflect, if it is within their power, that the four Cavalry Regiments have little opportunity of being what they ought to be and could
  216
  be if they are marooned indefinitely in South Africa. The Expeditionary Force cannot start without the Army Reserve. I have pointed out that the Army Reserve will fall automatically to about 106,000 in the very near future. That is a grave matter. I know that the reply of the Secretary of State for War is that he has arranged a pool to have a few more men for this or that battalion which is specially short. Again, he urges, it is "as broad as it is long" in view of the number of nine years' service men in the battalions. I reject that argument when the number of trained men is so import ant. It is doubly untrue if we consider, as I shall show shortly, what would happen when the Expeditionary Force has gone abroad. There is a way of remedying this which has often been brought to the notice of the Government, and I wish it had received more attention at their hands. At present, in the seventy-four Infantry battalions at home, the establishment is 720. In the twenty-two Infantry battalions abroad, exclusive of India, it is 840, and in the fifty-two Indian battalions it is 1,000. We ask now, as we have asked before, that the Government will increase the establishment of the Infantry battalions at home. We ask it on the ground that a battalion of 840 is a larger reserve-making machine than a battalion of 720 when you are face to face with the fact that you are dropping about 30,000 men in the Army Reserve. Is it not common prudence to increase the establishment of the seventy-four machines out of which you are going to make the Reserve? We believe that on the mobilisation of an Expeditionary Force, which starts with Infantry battalions on a peace establishment of 720, in order to have battalions of 1,000 for war you would have to take in 500 Reservists, and that untrained and immature men would be left at home. We think that 500 new faces are too many when you go to war. A greater proportion of the men ought to have been trained under the officers who are to lead them on Service. The right hon. Gentleman and his chief rely on the advice they get. I would suggest that they should ask their military advisers to advise them as to what is the best proportion—five to five, or six to four. I hope they will obtain guidance on that point and give the House the benefit of it. I submit that you must increase the Reserve, and that that is perhaps the best way to do it. The Expeditionary Force cannot

  217
  start without an ample Army Reserve, and it cannot start without a sufficient number of horses. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday that the Regular Army required 44,000, and the Territorial Force over 84,000. The Government has not done all it might have done in the matter of making adequate provision of horses. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday, as if it was a discovery, that omnibus horses do not exist in the same number as some years ago. Four years ago, Member after Member told the Government that the motor car had been invented. We told the Government that the county associations could not perform the work in regard to the registration of horses, because they had already more to do than they could manage. Now the commanding officer is to do the work with the assistance of the adjutant, who is the only person to give any military semblance to the Territorial Force. I say that these are dilatory proceedings, and that the plan is not complete and cannot be complete unless you have horses. The Government have been told to follow the example of other countries and have officers to certify if the horses are sound, and other officers to see if they are suitable. We have now three rifles, and apparently we are to have a fourth.
  Colonel SEELY: There will be two rifles—the short and the long. Both of the rifles will be re-lighted as soon as possible.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am not going into the controversy. I say that you have got three rifles between which substantial differences can be shown. Do not let us quarrel about that. If there are not three, why do you say that the adapted rifle is so much better than the unadapted rifle? What is it all about? Do you say that what I call the short rifle of 1903 is the same thing as that rifle is when you have altered the sight, put blocks of wood in the stock, and changed the bullet and the ammunition? What, in the name of common sense and the rapid conduct of Debate, is all the bother about? There are three weapons going, and there is a fourth weapon in the offing. Before another period of acute diplomatic tension comes the Government of the day should have prepared in every respect, in sights, missile, charge, and ammunition, enough for the old weapon to the day before it is discarded, and at the same time enough for the new weapon on the day on which it is adopted. And that
  218
  should hold good of the whole Army. I know I am making a big demand. By the whole Army I do not mean the Expeditionary Force. I do not mean four divisions armed with one kind and two divisions and the Special Reserve and the Cavalry Division with another, and the Territorials with the third. I mean that on that day when you change your armament you should have a complete armament for the whole of your land forces in this country. You never know the exact moment when diplomatic tension may come to the brink of war, if not to war itself. I know that this will cost money. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that in the past we handed on discarded armaments to the Volunteers; but I thought that there was a new heaven and a new earth. I thought when the Territorial Force came that we were going to look upon our Army as one. We must look upon it as one in that respect if those who enter the Territorial Forces are to take their services as a serious contribution of patriotism. Although the cost is great, I do not believe that it is as great to this country relatively as to other countries. We have wide territories throughout the world. We have a huge military police throughout the world, and coloured troops in Africa, and therefore we can turn to useful account many armaments more readily than other Powers, so that we need not chuck them on the market if we can arm the Colonial troops with them. It will cost money, but the money will be well expended.
  The Expeditionary Force cannot go abroad unless it is adequately officered. There the plan is not completed. Can it be completed as in the case of the rifle and the horse? Year after year the Government discuss this or that project for getting more officers of the right type, but they never do anything. They hold examinations and sometimes make them hard and sometimes make them ludicrously easy. Still the officers do not come. It has never occurred to them that you cannot get the article which you require for the wage which secured it in the days of the Battle of Waterloo. If we are in earnest, and we are in earnest, something must be done to get the right type of officer in sufficient numbers if your Expeditionary Force is to be a reality. I believe that with goodwill you can complete that portion of the plan, the pivot on which it all turns. I pass to what will be required when the Expeditionary Force has

  219
  gone. You have to leave behind troops for two purposes. First, to make good what is called the waste of the war, and also for home defence. Having troops to make good the waste of the war would mean that probably within a fortnight of hostilities breaking out you would require to draft out further troops. We know what the waste of war is, that it is due not only to the killed and wounded, but to the ravages of dysentery and sickness of all kinds and the breakdown of men. The result is that drafts are required. What do the Government specify in this all-important respect? They have made a Special Reserve with a certain establishment, and they have said that that Reserve, if it came up to that establishment, would supply the waste of war for six months. It never has come up to that establishment. I will quote a few figures, which I will confine to Infantry, and for a reason. When we ask the Secretary of State for War about the Special Reserve we often find that he is talking about other things, which are necessary and admirable, but which are not Infantry. Therefore, in order to know whether the Special Reserve can fulfil the purpose for which it is created, let me give the figures for the Infantry. According to the General Annual Report, in 1909 it was 3,724 below the Infantry establishment. On 1st October, 1910, it was 9,577 below the establishment, and on 1st October last year it was 15,851 below the establishment.
  I am not comparing the Special Reserve with the Militia of old days: it would be ludicrous to do so. On 1st January, 1906, the strength of Infantry was 72,374, of whom 66,453 were present at training. In the Special Reserve, on 1st January this year, there was a strength of Infantry of 50,000, of whom only 46,000 men are trained. Forty-six thousand Infantry trained in the Special Reserve is not enough to fulfil the purposes of repairing the waste of war if the Expeditionary Force is to be maintained. Then take the quality. Again I am drawing no comparison between the Special Reserve of the day and the Militia of the past, but I do invite the House to attend to the comparison between the number of the men in the Infantry battalion of the Special Reserve and the number of men—220 per battalion—who are left behind from the Regular battalion because they are not good enough to go into the furnace of war. That applies to
  220
  the seventy-four Infantry battalions of the Special Reserve. Your Regular battalions go abroad, and out of each battalion 220 are left behind because they are not old enough, strong enough, or trained enough to bear the rigours and hardship of war. Yet, within a fortnight, you are going to make up the wastage of war with what? With the Special Reserve. Who go into the Special Reserve? The men who were too young or too untrained to go into the regular battalion had to be left behind. That is a crucial point. The scheme breaks down at that point. It breaks in two. It is incapable of logical defence. It could not be recommended to an audience of school children if the proposition is stated plainly.
  I know that the proportion of those who join the regular Army from the Special Reserve is very large. Last year it was 50 per cent. The year before it was more, and we have been told that in some battalions it was as much as 62 per cent. More than half the men or boys who go into the Special Reserve go in in order to get into the Army. Those who do not come up to a high standard are to take the place1 of those who are rejected because they are not good enough to go out to war. That is the position. It is a grave one. In order to meet it we have the incurable optimism of the Noble Lord, who told us last year that in order to strengthen the Special Reserve he was going to turn from youth to maturity and to invite a number of soldiers who had finished with the Army or the Army Reserve between the ages of thirty-six and forty, in order to give a stiffening to these Infantry battalions and make up the number. He hoped to get over 9,000 of them. He was going to add seventy-five to each of the seventy-four battalions and 200 to these twenty-seven extra battalions of the Special Reserve who are to go abroad to the Mediterranean to liberate troops who are to go to war. He whistled for them. On reading his memorandum they have not come. He still hopes. He believes that next year something will turn up, just as in the case of the rifles and the horses, and as in the case of the subalterns who cannot be induced to enter the Army. The whole plan breaks in two unless you make the Infantry and your Special Reserve a reality. If you do not, that specification of Lord Haldane is a thing that is not complete. In this respect a very grave question arises, and

  221
  I do not know how you are going to meet it. So much for the quality of the Special Reserve.
  I pass now to say a word about the training. The seventy-four battalions which are to send men into the furnace of war within a fortnight used to have training for six months, but in order to make another readjustment of this creaking machine that has been reduced to five months' initial training. I do not think that that is enough, but how can the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary think that five months' initial training is enough for these men who are going to the front in a fortnight when they pour the vials of scorn upon four months' training as being insufficient for secondary purposes? They say that four months is useless; and I say that it is intolerable that the same authority which says that five months is enough for the Infantry Special Reserve, for the seventy-four battalions, should say that in the case of the twenty-seven extra battalions of the Special Reserve who may be sent to the Mediterranean—no light task, it may be owing to changes in our Naval policy—there is only to be three months' initial training, which is much less than what Lord Roberts proposed for troops who were ready to undertake duties of a less immediate character. I do not think that that portion of the plan can be completed. With all submission, I say that you can do something and something valuable if you will increase the establishment of the seventy-four Regular battalions to a strength of 840, so as to give a large reserve of mature-trained men at the moment that you want them?
  Now with regard to garrisons at home. We have very few Regular soldiers in Scotland. We have some naval bases there of enormous importance. Who is going to garrison them when war breaks out? Observe that the Special Reserve are inadequate in numbers, quality, and training; yet they have got to make good the wastage of war and find the garrisons. I do not know whether it is intended to use the Territorial Force. I want to ask what provision has been made for garrisoning such important points as those we have at home. One other point, are you sure that you could move the Expeditionary Force at the right moment, according to Lord Haldane's demands? Can you be sure that if you sent an Expeditionary Force to Europe that you would not have to send reinforcements to Egypt and perhaps also
  222
  to India? Is it not the case that during the South African war, when all the world was alarmed, and Asia knew we were carrying a great burden, that the mere fact that we were sending out a handful of troops to Pekin in conjunction with other Powers created a great impression. I believe that if ever you had to send an Expeditionary Force to Europe you cannot wipe that out as a contingency that you need not take into contemplation, but that you might also have not only to provide garrisons at home, but in Egypt, and it may be in India. I come to the Territorial Force. Are we to be told that it is so numerous, so good in quality, so well trained, so admirably officered, so well horsed, that we can leave the Territorial Force to resolve all the doubts which grow up in our minds when we look at the Expeditionary Force and the Special Reserve. When we listened to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Hull last night, the Under-Secretary shook his head as though my hon. Friend was going too far, but I noticed that a question was asked to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay.
  The right hon. Gentleman was asked how many men were rejected on medical grounds in 1909–10–11. No figures were available. The right hon. Gentleman was also asked how many officers and men were absent without leave from training in 1911. The answer was that there were forty-one officers and 6,700 men absent without leave. If that is the case, you cannot look to the Territorial Force to do all the jobs that are relegated to them. What are they going to do? They are to maintain confidence if the Expeditionary Force is sent abroad. That is admitted. They are to supply the garrison if the Special Reserve cannot supply them. That is admitted. They have to deter the enemy from thinking of invasion. Is that admitted? They are to defeat invasion if it is attempted. Is that admitted? I say that is a lot for such a force to accomplish. It is all very well to admit these things theoretically, and then go about the country and say, "Well, we do say that, but you would not get the men to join otherwise." You are committing those duties to the Territorial Force. They are to deter the enemy from thinking of invasion, and they are to defeat invasion. When the troops did not flock to our standard, the Secretary of State for War at the beginning of 1909, referring to

  223
  the late months of 1908, drew a terrible picture of what invasion might mean:—
  "No cause touched the well-being of the nation more closely than the defence of its hearths and homes. A nation at war with them would attempt invasion as the deadliest blow it could inflict, and so a stroke at the very heart of the British Empire, and if we are not prepared to meet they might be broken up and disintegrated."
  The optimist, speaking in this House in the March following, said he saw with great delight that the numbers of the Territorial Force had increased since October, and he then thought numbered as many as 240,000 men. I take Infantry alone, and I take the general Annual Report which deals with the period of October before the recruits began to come in. Take the Infantry of all ranks: On the 1st October, 1908, the Territorial Infantry, taking all ranks, numbered 122,322. After the "Daily Mail" boom, and all the other theatrical devices, it had increased in October, 1909, to 171,923, October, 1910, 170,009, and this year the figures help my argument, because they are now 167,199. I ask whether the difference between 122,000 and 167,000 of the Territorial Infantry changes the whole position from what it was in October, 1908, when the Secretary of State for War pointed out to the House that owing to the weakness of the Auxiliary Force, the nation was never nearer thinking of compulsory service, whereas now, with these 30,000 or 40,000 more Territorials they find the plan of the Government for the national security is as much as any man who is not a poltroon could wish for. The crucial point of the whole matter is this: In the near future the Army Reserve is going to be 30,000 less than now. In the near future the Territorial Force may, if men do not re-engage, go back to what it was at the time the Secretary of State for War uttered those jeremiads in 1908. Meanwhile the Special Reserve is 15,088 below what you say is necessary, and will probably fall to a lower figure. The position is this: We accept the definition given by the Government of the objects which we as a nation must achieve if we as a nation are to be safe. But we say that their plan for achieving those objects is not complete. We doubt if it can be completed. We assert our right to point out the defects, the more so that in the near future it is certain that those defects in some branches will increase. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that our relative naval superiority may decline, or that it is also possible a period of acute diplomatic
  224
  tension may be renewed? We ask the House and the country to consider these facts and these contingencies; and on these grounds we appeal in no party spirit to all patriotic men to take up what we conceive to be the national duty of studying imparitally, and if need be generously, the problem of national safety, for which as yet no solution has been found.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: We have listened to one of those speeches with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover so frequently delights the House, and I think his speech of to-day is no exception to those to which we have listened on previous occasions. There was about it all that picturesque imagery and power of imagination which, if I may say so without impertinence, are rarely absent from the speeches of those who have the sentimental instinct. I admired the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman stated his case without, as far as was possible for anyone to do so, betraying any traces of party spirit. In beginning my observations I should like to start with those in which I feel myself most closely in accord with the right hon. Gentleman, because in expressing my sentimental sympathy I do so not only speaking from experience as a soldier, but I think I also express the view of other Members on this side of the House who are in sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he deplored the fact that the Army Estimates had been brought in before the Navy Estimates. But whether or not I complain of their having been brought in before the Navy Estimates, I look to the time when we shall have something in the nature of Defence Estimates covering the whole area of defence questions submitted to this House, so that we can freely discuss these interdependent matters of Naval and Army administration, which are inseparable from thorough organisation for war. Until we reach some condition of that kind I think our state will continue to be interesting, but certainly will be devoid of much practical effect. With regard to the very interesting survey which the right hon. Gentleman made of our military position outside these islands, I think he did not give sufficient importance to the fact that we still expect—I expect it all the more strongly now my right hon. and gallant Friend is sitting on that bench—that we shall see at a very early date a considerable reduction in the garrison of South Africa, thus making more troops available for taking

  225
  up those duties, ever-changing duties I admit, and as the right lion. Gentleman pointed out, in other parts of the world. With regard to the position and the numbers of the Expeditionary Force, I must confess that I think the right hon. Gentleman was practising one of those strategies of ancient and savage warfare which consisted in creating a great amount of smoke in order to conceal the operations of the attacking force. I really fail to quite follow the figures that have been put forward, though even there I find myself in agreement in regard to one point, which I will deal with later when I touch upon the Cavalry. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not feel himself in a position to take a flight upon the question of aviation, because I feel that he has the special qualification to deal with a science of that kind, which has not reached the region of exact sciences. But he did himself less than justice when he confined himself to making a mere comparison of the amounts to be expended as announced by my right hon. Friend, with the amounts to be spent in other countries. Such comparisons are, I think, futile. Happily for this country we still possess, in addition to other conditions into which I need not enter, a manufacturing power which other countries do not possess. We possess also special aptitude for seizing the ideas which are collected by nations who, perhaps, have a keener power of dealing with new questions than we have, but who are less happy in the way they apply them. I have no doubt whatever that my right hon. Friend and Lord Haldane have been well advised to limit their expenditure in this particular sphere, and to watch the developments which are taking place in other countries—and nowhere as yet can it be said that aviation has become a powerful arm of the military Service—and keep a watch upon them with the certainty that we shall be able to overtake other nations in that as we have done in many other modern developments.
  The right hon. Gentleman touched upon the question of Reserve. It is impossible for me to look up any reference at the moment, but I have a distinct recollection of having heard my right hon. Friend (Colonel Seely) give, in answer to a question, an explanation of the manner in which the flow of Reserve will equalise itself owing to the measures taken recently by the War Office. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has a method of recalling these facts, and will perhaps be able to give the information. On the question
  226
  of the Special Reserve and the organisation of the Territorial Force generally I hold much the same opinion now that I did at the time when the new organisation was introduced. I then stated in the House, and I hold the opinion now, that the general scheme of the Territorial Force was marked rather too much by a pedantic symmetry, by adherence to dogmatic accuracy, in the preparations of the Army and the distribution of the units. I think it has lost very considerably in that way. In regard to the Special Reserve, I pointed out, I think, at that time what appeared to me to be a really sound system of development, and to which I will refer presently. There is in all European countries what is called the organisation of reserve battalions. It has always appeared to me that the object to be aimed at in the change that was made at the time of the introduction of the Territorial system into this country was the gradual transformation of the Home Army into a force organised on a similar basis to those reserve battalions that we see in foreign countries—that is to say, all battalions with a considerably larger permanent cadre than exists in the Territorials, to be completed with enough men who are putting in a smaller number of days' service in the course of the year. I have put that system into force myself with considerable success, and I believe it is the soundest system that could be adopted in the case of a Home Army recruited on the voluntary system.
  I never had any great belief in the two divisions that were made at the time of the introduction of the Territorial system, of the Special Reserve and the Territorial Force, but, together with the other points to which I took exception at the time, they were possibly inevitable, because we had to take over the old Volunteer Force, and you could not sweep the whole thing away. You had your cadres and you had to transform them. It was a difficult thing to do, and I think it has been done with extraordinary success, and I think it is most unfortunate for hon. Gentlemen to take the line of perpetually examining it and complaining that it is not developing fast enough. They pull up the plant to see if it is growing, and that is fatal to any organisation. The most fatal effect it has is that it makes those who are engaged in the work a deal uncertain as to their position and a deal discouraged with the work they are doing. I believe myself that whatever party is in office they will

  227
  have gradually to transform the home military system from what exists at present. I do not think you will ever in any country lay down a cut-and-dried system, and say it is going to work. It has got to be gradually developed and fitted in, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham), if he ever does come over to this side while I am here, and I hope he will be in the War Office, will find that it will have to be an adaptation and gradual evolution to a newer type. My belief is that it will be something on the lines I have already pointed out. The right hon. Gentleman was pleasantly sarcastic about the incurable optimists who sit on this side. Incurable optimism is better than youthful pessimism.
  I cannot sit down without doing that which I made an endeavour to do last evening, when my right hon. Friend intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes). I must allude to some of the statements which were made by the hon. Gentleman. I saw him in the House to-day, and I am sorry that he has now left. The hon. Gentleman opened his speech by informing us that he intended to point out the deplorable condition of the Territorial Force. That may possibly have been the patriotic object he had in view. He said he was going to stick close to that point. Whether it was his natural sense of humour or the desire to please the sense of humour of those sitting near him, he found himself drawn away to what, I think, was a most unfortunate line of argument, and one which certainly cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. I pass over the personal reference that he made to a very distinguished officer highly placed in His Majesty's Army, because I feel sure that it was made perhaps without consideration, and that he himself would be the first on consideration to regret it, because he must know that officers in that position are not in a position to reply. They are not here, and their very position prevents them from taking any notice of those personal references. But there is another reason, which I am sure would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman if he will consider for a moment, and that is that the reputation of an officer is not his own personal property: it is an asset of the nation, it belongs to the nation. An officer who has made a great name in the Army no doubt may in the course of his career have made, I will not say enemies, but at any rate have
  228
  found persons who were not of the same opinion as himself; but he has in his career accumulated no doubt titles and honours and decorations and all the baubles that ought to reflect glory on his reputation. They belong to him, but the reputation of the officer himself is national property, and anyone who tries to belittle that reputation is belittling that which is most valuable to the nation. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman spoke, in making those personal references, without thinking, I daresay, but I think he will admit that it would not be becoming to allow such a slip to pass by. But there was another statement which he made which I view with even greater gravity, and that is when he used these words:—
  "You will never find generals criticising if criticism has an unpleasant effect on their future. It is not to their interest to say that the thing is not a working, success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1912, col. 143]
  5.0 P.M.
  Such a monstrous attack as that I think has never been made upon a body of deserving officers. To say that any British officer would, for his own personal advancement, neglect to do that which he considered it his duty to do, is to cast a slur upon the whole of the officer class of this nation. There may be different opinions as to the value of the Territorial Force. The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to have his opinion as to what is the best way to raise the Force, but I do not think, from what he told us yesterday, that his method, if applied to either the Territorials or the Regulars, would be calculated to raise their feeling of pride in them solves or in their Service.
  Mr. MARK SYKESrose to speak—
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: If the hon. Gentleman rises to a point of Order I will give way, but I think I am entitled to reply to what was said. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to have his opinion as to the method and the tone that may be adopted in criticising the Force, but it is not right to say that any officer who holds His Majesty's Commission and has His Majesty's confidence, in that he holds an important command, would derogate from his office by failing to make that criticism which he thought was deserved. I pass from these unpleasant topics to look upon the deplorable picture of the Territorial Force which the hon. Gentleman attempted to draw. He told us what a soldier must be able to do. I venture to think that some of us know that better than he does.

  229
  He told us that soldiers must be able to walk, to carry weights, to shoot straight, and to obey orders.
  Mr. PAGE CROFT (was understood to say): Which the Territorials cannot do.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: I do not know what experience the hon. Member who interrupts mo may have.
  Mr. PAGE CROFT: Fourteen years.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: I have had nearly forty years' experience of Territorials and Regulars, and my connection with the Territorials continues to this day. Let us examine these criticisms. If, in the very wet season of the year before last, the hon. Gentleman had been taking in Wales that amusement and pleasure which, I am happy to hear he enjoys with the Territorials, he would have seen Territorial divisions performing marches which I have rarely seen equalled in the Regular Service at manœuvres, and under exceptionally severe conditions owing to the exceptional weather. It so happened that I received a letter from a kind person, not a Territorial officer, and not engaged in the Territorial Force at all, endeavouring to enlist my influence, as he expressed it, to obtain a remission of the weights that these men had been ordered to carry when they went into camp, because, as he said, they had received instructions to go in full marching order. My answer was that I knew nothing about, what the orders might be, but that I hoped he would use his influence with any Territorials in whom he might be interested, to see that they obeyed the orders which were given, as I was perfectly certain they would find that they were not so difficult as he anticipated.
  There has been so much said about shooting and the rifle that I will not dwell on the subject at great length. I believe, however, that the Territorial Army to-day is far more efficient in that particular than many of the masses of foreign troops with which I have had the honour to be associated on more than one occasion. A near relation of mine, if I may be permitted to touch a personal note, was engaged in the 1870 war in raising and organising that part of the French Army which was afterwards known as the Army of the Loire, and the description which I have had from him and from officers who served as to the utter ignorance of the mobile which formed that army when they joined as to
  230
  the use of their weapons would certainly astonish anybody who had seen our Territorials; yet nevertheless those troops did extraordinarily good service, and wrote a page that will rank among the brightest pages of French military history. I am perfectly satisfied that our Territorials will do the same if ever it comes to their turn. As to obeying orders, I am satisfied that that is the last part of the soldier's duty the hon. Member ever learnt. Incidentally the hon. Member touched up his picture with some lurid colours representing the diseases from which the Territorial soldier was supposed to suffer. I have never heard anything like it except once in this House when I heard an hon. Member declaiming against the evils which might possibly arise from vaccination. No doubt in any great aggregation of men there will be malformations and diseases, but I deny absolutely that there is any excessive development of malformation amongst the men who serve in this particular branch of His Majesty's Service. In that part of the Territorial Force with which I am connected, I find men who are the brothers, cousins, and other relations of the men who used to serve with me, and of men who are now in the Grenadier Guards, because a large number of the men from that district go to that regiment. They are precisely the same material, and the same spirit exists in these men that has made the Grenadiers what they are. There is one disease which the hon. Gentleman might possibly have added to his list, though I do not think he will find it among the rank and file of the Territorials, namely, swelled head. One thing that officers who make these criticisms would do well to remember is that it is not only physical qualities that make an army; it is that great motive power which we know as esprit de corps. If you insult a body of troops, whatever it may be, by speaking of them in the way in which he spoke of the Territorials yesterday, you are not likely to enhance that esprit de corps. It is sympathy that the men want, and I believe that is the quality which so many of our generals, who are now commanding units of the Territorial Force, have so satisfactorily shown. They have shown sympathy for men who are endeavouring to do their duty under circumstances of considerable difficulty—under difficulties which I should be the first to join with hon. Gentlemen opposite in bringing pressure upon the Government to alleviate. No one has a right to use such language as

  231
  would lower, in the eyes of the people of the country, the position of men who are doing their best to do their duty.
  I will dismiss the rest of this unpleasant incident and return to what is far more pleasant to me, namely, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and the remarks that I promised to make on the question, of horses. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech on our Mounted Forces. Personally I should like to see His Majesty's Government direct their attention, in the first place, to keeping our Mounted establishments at a much higher figure than at present, and, secondly, to taking some of those practical steps which we on both sides have been urging upon them for some years for the provision of horses. It is no use at this time of day telling us that the 'bus horse no longer exists. What is much more serious is that we who live in the rural districts know that the breeding of horses is becoming less. That is a very serious question indeed. We have been passed off for several years in this House from one Department to another in reference to this matter. If we addressed the right hon. Gentleman's Chief when he was in this House we were told that the question of horses was a matter for the Department of Agriculture, while if we attacked the hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Agriculture we were told that the matter was under the consideration of a military committee. So it has gone on, and nothing has been done. Meanwhile the farmers of the country are giving up breeding horses. I know it, because I belong to a country where they used to breed a large number of horses, and horses of the kind that are required for Cavalry purposes. What is required in this country is a system of remount depots to which horses are brought at two years old. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear hon. Members on the opposite side cheer that statement. I shall be most happy if they will co-operate to try to bring pressure to bear upon my right hon. Friend. I think it is a door that is easy to force, because I believe his sympathies are with us in the attainment of some system by which we shall maintain not only the efficiency of our Cavalry, but also that superiority as a horse-breeding nation which we have so long held.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW: Perhaps, in the first place, I may be allowed
  232
  to say that I cordially agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down in his idea of depots for the provision of horses for the Army. It is a question that I have often considered, mainly from my experience in India. There we bought horses from Australia, put them into depots, and used men of the Cavalry and Artillery to break them in and turn them out in condition. In this country it is a different thing, because here, instead of having older horses you have to buy them young. I maintain, however, that by buying horses, as the last speaker said, two years old, you would get them very much cheaper. That being so, they would cost very little more before they came to be four or five years old, and were fit for service in the Army. You have a large number of Reserve men, both of the Artillery and the Cavalry, and they could very well be used to look after and train the horses, and so be prevented from walking about the street out-of-elbows. I want to make one remark on the heavy taking to task, if I may call it so, of my hon. Friend, the Member for Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes) inflicted upon him by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I appreciate the feelings of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; at the same time I wish to point out that, if there is a fault, the fault does not lie with my hon. Friend. It lies with the Members of the present Cabinet. When they use expedients to which we are now accustomed to bolster up their malpractices, and their poor schemes; when they one year have a book and the next year a speech; and when they take the opportunity of advertising the book and the speech, I confess I think it gives Gentlemen reason to think that the officers who are responsible for the book and for the speech have been put up for the purpose of helping the Cabinet.
  We heard something yesterday from the hon Member for Sutherland (Mr. Hamar Greenwood), who is not now in his place, about the military correspondent of the "Times." This gentleman, we were told, was an officer of more war experience than anybody in this House. We were challenged to produce anybody who had seen more fighting than that gentleman, who is also employed at the War Office. I happen to know the military correspondent of the "Times" very well. I happen to have been on campaigns with him. I have a very great respect for his military knowledge. I am not able to write as he can. Possibly, however, I have had as much experience of fighting as he has had. And I

  233
  do say this: When a man who has been an officer becomes the military correspondent of the "Times," and is immediately taken up by the Radical Government, or by any Government, and given a room and access to papers in the War Office, it leads one to think that that gentleman does not always write what he really thinks to be true, but that which may happen to suit the Government that employs him. There, again, I say that the fault undoubtedly lies with the Members of the present Cabinet.
  I want to come now to the observations of my right lion. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham). In his excellent and instructive speech he told us that we are spending £28,000,000 on the land Forces of the Empire at the present moment. He took up, as a matter of argument, that that £28,000,000 was being properly spent. I must confess that personally I shall try to show that I do not agree with him. I find, compared with 1905, that we spend, roughly speaking, just £1,000,000 less. How has that million reduction been brought about? By a very large reduction in the fighting strength of our Regular Army; not only a large reduction in the ranks and in the Reserves, but also in the cadres by which rapid expansion is prevented; and this, as we all know, is most important in time of war. I see also that the Government have reduced that branch of the Service which is the most difficult to create, the most technical, and that which requires the longest training—I refer to the Artillery. I think I am right in stating that the Government have reduced by £2,000,000 the pay of the Army. What do we find on the other side? They have saved £2,000,000 on the Regular Army, and they have put an extra million pounds upon what we used to call the Auxiliary Forces. This makes the total expenditure on these Forces something rather over £3,000,000.
  The last speaker has a very high opinion of the Territorial Forces. I personally prefer to believe what members of that Force tell me themselves to anything that General French may say, or anybody in General French's position, or, in fact, any general officer. I hold that a man commanding a battalion, or the men in the battalion, either officers or men, are more likely to know what they are really fit for than any general officer in the kingdom. I do not blame the Territorials in any way whatsoever. I have the greatest respect for them. I have the greatest respect for anybody who does his best for the country. But I say again that the fault lies with the
  234
  Cabinet. If words could do it we should have an Army countless in numbers and probably invincible in the field. But the volubility of the War Secretary or even the plausibility of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, will not ensure the training of the Territorial Force. If you spend the money on inefficiency, which you are now doing, you are doing worse than throwing the money away. You are spending public money and causing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull said yesterday, a public danger. If you cannot train the Territorial Forces why keep them? In my humble opinion you should put back that £2,000,000 to the Regular Forces, and reduce that spent on the Auxiliary Forces to £1,000,000.
  I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, a question that I think is somewhat important, and that is whether his military advisers have ever yet decided in their own minds, and whether they have ever yet advised him or the Secretary of State for War, for what purpose we maintain an Army at all? For what purpose do we maintain our land forces? Is it to provide our garrisons in India, at our coaling stations, in the Colonies overseas? Is it to provide drafts for those garrisons, to reinforce those garrisons, if necessary, in time of war? Is it to provide as well that Expeditionary Force about which we have heard so much? In my humble experience, our present organisation is moderately well adapted for the former, but for the latter it is ridiculously inadequate, almost impossible. How are we to tell if we go to war to-morrow that we should not have at once to reinforce our troops in India, Egypt, and probably the greater part of our coaling stations as well? My right hon. Friend mentioned the very small garrisons that we keep at Hong Kong, Singapore, and Ceylon. I think he was wrong on one point. I was at Ceylon two years ago, and at that time there was not a single British battalion in that island. Whether the War Office have seen the error of their ways, and whether they have since then put a British battalion into that island, I do not know, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman opposite to tell the House. Meanwhile we have reduced our Naval force in those seas. Is it right we should leave these very important positions so inadequately guarded?
  Now as to the Expeditionary Force. We were told last year that six divisions were ready to start at a moment's notice.

  235
  Rumour often plays us false, but rumour has it—and I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether rumour is correct—that this year six divisions were not forthcoming, that only four were available. I shall be very glad to know if that is right. On the other hand, it is very doubtful whether 100,000 men or thereabouts would be of any particular use if thrown on to the Continent at a moment's notice. In any case it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would inform us as to what will be the composition of this force of 100,000 men. I asked him to-day a question with regard to the Reserves. I asked him what I consider a very fair question. I asked him:—
  "If any mobilisation took place in the country, how many men of the Reserves would be found in the ranks of the Guards and in the Infantry of the Line?"
  I asked him for a purpose. We have found in South Africa and in other places that good as a Reserve man may be, good as he is when he has had time to settle down, he cannot be, and is not, as good when he first joins the ranks as the man already serving in those ranks. The least you can do, if you are going to put into the field a force so ridiculously small compared with those of our neighbours, is to see that it is perfectly equipped, perfectly turned out, perfectly ready for active service, and, more important than all, perfectly disciplined. If you put a large majority of Reserve men into these ranks when they sail from this country they must fail in discipline.
  The right hon. Gentleman refused to tell me how many Reserve men there would be in the ranks. I am going to tell him, and if I am wrong perhaps he will correct me. I am going to tell him that in the Brigade of Guards alone at one time there were something like six to four, and in the line, owing to our system of treating every battalion in this country like a nursery, making it a feeding-bottle for our battalions abroad in time of peace, I tell him by that system of sucking them dry like a squeezed lemon he would probably have 70 to 80 per cent. of Reserve men in the ranks if he were going to war to-morrow. If I am wrong, I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will correct me. I say, then, if you are going, beside finding those drafts for our forces in India, finding drafts for our forces in the China Sea, and other portions of the British Empire, to reinforce these troops in time of war, and if we are to have an Expeditionary Force worthy of
  236
  the name we must alter our present system. Our present system is an organisation for peace, combined with a few small black wars in which we have been indulging for several years now, and not for war. What happened in South Africa? It is perfectly true that eventually we had a very large force there—but what happened? It was not a case of 100,000 men fighting, perhaps, 200,000 of the best-trained troops of Europe—it was a case of 180,000 men fighting 60,000 farmers, and it took us all our time to do it. That was the effect of our system. Our system is wrong. It is not fit for war, and if you continue in the present way, and if you are going, with the forces you now have, to carry out the scheme put before us by the Secretary of State for War, I say you are courting disaster.
  Captain MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will no doubt forgive me if I do not follow him in detail in his very interesting speech. I am very willing to agree with him that some of the defects that made themselves apparent in the South African War were due to a particular system, but it was the system in force at that time, and not this system.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I did not say it was.
  Captain MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman might have laid more stress upon the fact that it was the system in force when the late Unionist Government was in power.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman my wish is not to make party capital, but simply to do the best I can for the Army and the country.
  Captain MURRAY: With all respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think some of the remarks made in the course of his speech did not very successfully carry out his desire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover made a reference in the opening of his speech to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hamar Greenwood) in the course of the Debate last night. I do not wish to labour this point; it is very trivial, but as the actual remarks Lord Roberts made, in reference to which my hon. Friend spoke, were not quoted, perhaps I might be allowed to quote them. The point was this. My hon. Friend said:—
  "I do not understand what either Lord Roberts or the Leader of the Opposition meant by automatic Artillery."

  237
  And that was followed by loud laughter from the opposite side of the House, and my hon. Friend went on to say:—
  "These were the words the Leader of the Opposition used. He said 'automatic Artillery,' and that is the whole point."
  And again there was loud laughter from the Opposition. I have the words here which were used by Lord Roberts. He said:—
  "I still maintain that our soldiers are armed with inferior weapons, for, even with the improved sights and the issue of a new kind of ammunition, our rifle is inferior to the German and French rifle. And owing to the Artillery fuse setters and sights not being up to date, our field guns are not automatic firing guns."
  These were the words used by Lord Roberts. I am bound to say I do not understand how he should have used the word "automatic" in that particular sense. I only want to point out that, despite the uproarious laughter of hon. Members opposite, that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland was quite correct in using the words he did in the Debate. It is a very trivial point, I know. I did not propose again to enter the field of controversy in respect of the rifle, and I would not have touched on it but for the observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. He referred to this controversy, and he went on to claim an absolute victory for his party in the discussion that has taken place, on the strength of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. If that be so, if it indeed be a victory, may I say, with all respect, that in my humble judgment it was a very barren victory indeed. I am bound to say I am somewhat surprised at the light-heartedness with which the Leader of the Opposition and his party have treated a situation which, if the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition at the Albert Hall was true, would be a very grave situation indeed. What has happened? May I very briefly recall to the House what the position is? On a certain day the Leader of the Opposition went to the Albert Hall and made a speech in which he said the weapons of our Army were very inferior to those of any other army in the world. These are not the exact words, but they are very nearly the exact words used by the right hon. Gentleman. In the Debate which took place yesterday my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War replied to that speech. As soon as my right hon. Friend sat down the Leader of the Opposition jumped up and answered my right hon. Friend. Then comes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover to-day, and
  238
  his reference to the discussion is this: He claims an absolute victory for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposion in respect of that controversy, and there the matter ends.
  Colonel SEELY: No, no.
  Captain MURRAY: My right hon. Friend probably has something more to say on the point. At any rate, so far as the Opposition is concerned, the matter apparently is at an end. I think if the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition were true, a situation would have arisen which would have called for, and rightly called for, a Vote of Censure on the part of the Opposition against the Government of the day. If it were, in effect, true that our Army was to-day armed with weapons utterly inferior to those of any other Power it was the duty of His Majesty's Opposition to come down to this House and to endeavour to obtain a majority in this House for a Vote of Censure on His Majesty's Ministers in this respect. Seeing that has not been done, but that it has been passed over in what, with all respect, I must call a light-hearted way, one is forced to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition, and those who speak with him on the opposite side of the House, do not seriously believe in the arguments they have advanced in this respect. I am not going to labour the point; the rifle was very thoroughly discussed by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in the course of the Debate yesterday. He advanced his reasons for considering the rifle to be certainly one of the best in Europe at the present time.
  Colonel SEELY: The best in Europe at the present time among all the great Powers.
  Captain MURRAY: That may be so. Personally, I do not think, and I never did think, that the short rifle is as good as the old long rifle, and I still continue to think, as one who has had considerable daily experience for a period of years in the use of both rifles, that the old rifle converted to a charger-loader is still a better rifle than the short rifle introduced by the Unionist Government in 1903. Various reasons have been given why that rifle was introduced. I believe the Noble Lord the Member for West Perth (Marquess of Tullibardine) hit the nail upon the head in the remarks he made last night. What I say in that respect in no way weakens the case of the right hon. Gentleman. There

  239
  is not much difference between the two rifles; if anything, the advantage lies with the old rifle converted, as it has been, to a charger-loader, which the Territorials now have. If any blame lies anywhere—and I do not wish to score a party point—it is in the fact that in the year 1904, when France first adopted the pointed bullet, the Government of that day did not at once proceed with the necessary developments in order to ensure a better rifle in the speediest possible space of time. I wish to say one more word in regard to the automatic rifle. The right hon. Gentleman touched very lightly upon this point yesterday. He mentioned what was said by the Secretary of State for War, referred to in such humorous terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, that experiments were taking place and an endeavour was being made to obtain a suitable automatic rifle. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, before he acclaims any opinion in regard to the introduction of the automatic rifle into this country, will first take opinion upon its utility, serviceability, and reliability from individuals who know what the use of the rifle in the field is. There are and can be advanced any number of theoretical arguments in favour of an automatic rifle. I do not, however, propose to detail them at any length, but I believe if the Committee had consulted Infantry officers and others accustomed to use a rifle, that the short Lee-Enfield rifle would never have been given to the Infantry. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be led away by theoretical arguments. It is said that the automatic rifle will give to the Army that possesses it the power of pouring in a hail of lead at a particular moment when it is most needed. That may be so, and I think that is the chief argument adduced by the supporters of the automatic rifle—in fact I believe it is the only argument which will hold water—but even that argument leaves out of consideration altogether a much more important consideration, namely, the strain upon the soldier of firing off an enormous number of rounds not only minute after minute, but hour after hour, and even day after day. It also leaves out of consideration the question of ammunition supply. I am not going to enter into military history or into many cases which I could quote which happened during the late war in Manchuria and elsewhere as to
  240
  the difficulties encountered by troops running out of ammunition at an early stage of the conflict.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Exactly the same argument was used in regard to the breech-loader.
  Captain MURRAY: Yes, but it is very much more forcible in the case of the automatic rifle. During one of the battles in Manchuria several of the Japanese divisions ran out of ammunition on the first day of the battle, and if they had been firing with automatic rifles the supply would have run out very much sooner. It is a dogmatic assertion, but I am quite prepared to say that an Army armed with automatic rifles would not necessarily possess any great advantages over an army armed with a charger-loading rifle such as we possess to-day. I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will take these matters into consideration. To my mind it is almost impossible to obtain an automatic rifle which would be serviceable, and the component parts of which would not be liable to go out of order very soon after it had been taken into the field. I pass for one moment to what I may call another technical detail of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Yesterday the Under-Secretary for War referred to the Maxim gun, and he said:—
  "It is true that our Maxim is a very heavy gun. We are trying a Maxim very much lighter, one less than half the weight, only about 286 lbs."
  Colonel SEELY: Obviously that is a misprint. I said the exact weight is only 26 lbs.
  Captain MURRAY: I concluded that was a printer's error; but the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
  "But it is very doubtful whether the advantage will be very great, because as you lighten the Maxim it becomes so much more unstable. Anyone who has tried a Maxim gun must know how liable it is to jam, and make hopelessly erratic practice."
  I wish to lay stress upon the arguments adduced against the lighter Maxim gun, and I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to hesitate before he makes himself responsible for the introduction of a Maxim gun lighter than the gun with which our Infantry are armed at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the factor of steadiness. That is not only a most important factor, but it is all-important. Anyone who has had any experience in firing a Maxim gun knows the enormous difficulty there is in keeping a gun of the weight of the present gun steady. If a gun of the weight of 26 lbs. were introduced, I

  241
  think it would be almost impossible to fire a belt without the vast majority of the bullets going very wide of the mark. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that fact into consideration. I am not speaking from the point of view of the Cavalry, but the Infantry, with which I have served. I do not see any great reason for a lighter gun than the Maxim gun we have at present, and I do not think the weight is so serious a consideration as many people would have us believe. Let us take, for instance, the Maxim gun as it obtains on what is, after all, one of the best battle-grounds of the world—namely, the North-West Frontier of India. There is no difficulty whatever experienced by those regiments serving on the North - West Frontier of India in the hills. With the Maxim gun and its equipment on the new transport no difficulty is experienced, and I speak as one who has had some experience in that particular quarter of the world. The gun is easily taken off its mule, set up again, and can be moved quickly from one position to another, and I do not think that a lightening of the gun would necessarily add to what must be a serious consideration—that is, a greater ammunition supply. I ask the right hon. Gentleman once more to have a consultation on this matter, if he has any change in mind, with officers, non-commissioned officers, and men if necessary, who have had really serious experience of the Maxim gun in all its bearings. Of course, I do not know what influence the new rifle may have upon the Maxim gun, but I assume the right hon. Gentleman does not propose a different calibre for the rifle than for the gun.
  Colonel SEELY: No.
  Captain MURRAY: I do not know whether the calibre is .256 or .275, but that must necessarily affect the weight of the Maxim gun. I will not pursue this subject, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some consideration at any rate to the observations which I have made.
  6.0 P.M.
  Colonel BURN: It is a source of great satisfaction to hon. Members on both sides of the House to hear of the improved conditions of health now existing in the Service, and also that the number of cases of drunkenness has been diminished so very greatly within the last few years. I am sure everybody approves of that, and it is a great advantage to the Service generally.
  242
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions about recruiting. Does he think we are getting the best men and the best value for the money the country pays for our soldiers? Is the right class of man offering himself for enlistment? I think myself in this country we shall always get a considerable number of soldiers who are soldiers by heredity and they join the Service because their fathers and grandfathers have been in the Army before them. They make excellent soldiers but they form a very small percentage of the men who join the Army. I should like to ask if anyone can feel satisfied with regard to the recruits who present themselves in view of the large number of rejections that have to be made by the medical officers on account of physical inefficiency and defects and ill-health in some shape or form, or due to not coming up to the measurement, notwithstanding the fact that we have a pretty low standard even now. It seems to me that the Army is to a great extent a home for those who have not succeeded in any other walk of life. Very often it is the hunger necessity that makes them join the Army in a great many cases. I think one great reason why, in these days when there are so many men going abroad to the Colonies and to foreign countries, we do not get that class of men to enlist in the Army which we should like is that their future in the Army is not sufficiently attractive. Only 10 per cent. rejoin after their twelve years' service and complete their twenty-one years. That means we lose a great many good men. It is always open to the commanding officer to reject anyone and refuse to take him if he is not satisfied with his behaviour and with his performance as a soldier, but I think, if a little more latitude were given to the commanding officers, we should be able to retain in the Service many men who are excellent at their profession. It would be to the great advantage of the Service that they should rejoin and complete their twenty-one years. A great percentage of the men when they join the Army look to making it their profession, so that they can feel that in their latter days they will get a pension, and, possibly, get some Government appointment in the Civil Service. The soldier at present has a real grievance when he is given employment in the Civil Service after having done a certain number of years, seven or twelve, in the Army, he is not allowed to count that service for the purposes of his pension. I

  243
  know the matter has been brought before the House on several occasions, but I think the grievance is a real and a just one.
  A man who joins the Army goes soldiering in foreign lands and in unhealthy climates, leaving all those who are dear to him at home, and very often he goes on active service, with all its dangers. That man is doing the most honourable service he can do for his country, and it is the duty of the State, as far as possible, to take care of him and allow him to count the years he has served in the Army towards the pension he will earn if he is fortunate enough to get employment in a Civil Service Department at the end of his military service. The man who joins the Civil Service begins to count his service for his pension from the day he joins. The men who became State servants on the transfer of the telephone from the National Telephone Company to the State are allowed to count all their previous service with the National Telephone Company. They joined without any examination, and I think the case of the soldier, who has done honourable work for his country, as compared with their case, is unfair and unjust, and I think it ought to be righted. If something were done in this direction, and you offered the man who joins the Service some attraction in the shape of ensuring his future, you would get a very much better class of man than you are getting now. We in this country, with a small Army compared with Continental countries, ought to aim at getting the best men we can, and the only means of doing it is to offer some attractions in the shape of future employment. I am sure we all appreciate what successive Governments have done with regard to giving employment under the Civil Service to soldiers who have completed their first period or their twelve years. It is absolutely right that the State should do that. I know it has been done in the Post Office and in the police. It is not putting a big charge on the State, and I feel every penny of money spent in that direction is for the real benefit of the Service and of the men who present themselves for enlistment.
  I wish to make a few remarks with regard to the horses of the Yeomanry regiments in and near London. You have an excellent class of man, keen, educated and intelligent, and you can make a very good soldier of him. He joins because he is keen, and is anxious to take some part in the defence of his country. But if you saw some of these London regiments go into
  244
  camp for their training on Berkshire Downs, at Aldershot, or somewhere handy, and saw the horses on which they were mounted, I do not think you would be very pleased or consider them particularly efficient. The mounting of these Yeomanry regiments is more or less in the hands of a ring of dealers. They hire these horses from people they know, and at the end of the training it is a sorry sight to look at some of the regiments when they are coming home. At the end of a recent training of one London regiment the veterinary surgeon was asked to earmark the horses he considered fit to go on service and to carry 18-stone. He could only mark 7 per cent. that he would pass as fit to go on service. I think there is a remedy for that without putting any extra charge on the State. I think chose Yeomanry regiments can be mounted on very efficient cobs without any increase in the Army Estimates. At present the dealers who supply the horses get £5 a horse, but the owner, I am sure, does not get the £5. If you increase your remount staff, say, to two officers, with the necessary number of clerks, four or five, in the office, I feel certain you could earmark and register a certain number of horses, 14.2 to 15 hands, admirably suited for the Yeomanry; and, if you gave a fee of £1 for registering those horses, I feel certain the owners would be quite ready to accept £3 for the actual training. That would only mean you would be spending £4 altogether, and the remainder of your grant of £5 per horse would pay for your remount officers and the necessary clerks to do the office work.
  I think that is a practicable scheme, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider if something in that direction cannot be done. It is wrong that the system should go on as it does to-day. I do not suppose 1 per cent. of the men in these regiments own their own horses, and the dealers who cater for the horses ring the changes on two or three regiments, making one of these cobs earn £15 in the year when probably his actual value, if put up to auction, would not amount to more than a half that sum. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will allow there is something to be said for the plan I propose, and, if he will seriously consider it and see if something cannot be done, I feel he will very much improve the efficiency of these London regiments. After all, the ranks of the regiment are filled with excellent men. Their training is a charming holiday to them. They go out in the open for

  245
  a fortnight or so, and, coming as they do from the offices in the City, it does them all the good in the world. They want to ride, and it is an asset to the nation that they should be trained to ride. They do all their shooting at other times when they are not out for their annual training. I feel if something of this sort were done the London Yeomanry could be made far more efficient and the training they actually undergo would be very much more of a reality than it is at the present time.
  Major WILLOUGHBY: In rising to make a few observations on the questions which have been raised about the rifles which are at present provided, I do so in no party spirit, but at the same time I noticed the hon, and gallant Member on the other side of the House who spoke earlier did not go so far as to say that in his opinion the rifle with which the British Army is at present armed was superior to those of foreign and Continental Powers. I question very much whether any officer in His Majesty's Army is of that opinion. I have talked the matter over with my brother officers, and personally I certainly believe it is the general opinion that we are at a considerable disadvantage owing to the very much higher trajectory which the British rifle has compared with the rifles of foreign countries. I think one can discount to a certain extent some of the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman when telling us yesterday of the advantages which our new rifle would have over the rifles of other nations. I think hardly any Continental Power has got a rifle which is not reliable. Every Continental Power is arming its forces with a rifle which is at least reliable. I do not think any great Continental Power expects it is going to suffer when it goes to war owing to a great number of jams or other causes which make a rifle not as effective as might be concluded from some of the arguments the right hon. Gentleman put forward yesterday. Taking all rifles so far as reliability is concerned as efficient, we then come to the question of rapidity of firing. The hon. and gallant Member opposite was rather with me in thinking that this question of rapidity of fire was not the only requirement in a rifle. I question very much whether we are altogether wise in putting too much value on rapidity of fire. If there are certain advantages in being able to deliver a rapid fire there are also certain disadvantages from such delivery, such as shortage of ammunition at
  246
  a critical moment, which might cause a far greater loss to us. Then we come to the question of accuracy. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a number of decimal calculations, but I honestly say that decimal figures are not to my mind of any great value when considering the suitability of a rifle. We are told that certain tests have been carried out with certain results. I am afraid the figures are not convincing to my mind. The right hon. Gentleman adduced certain figures showing that the English rifle, when tested, came out best among a number of rifles in shooting at a target at a short distance.
  Colonel SEELY: Why does the hon. and gallant Member doubt the accuracy of the tests? They were carefully carried out by our own experts.
  Major WILLOUGHBY: I do not doubt their accuracy; I said that I, as a practical soldier, doubted the value of the tests. They may be of great value in getting at the technical qualities of a rifle, but I, as a practical soldier, want to know whether the rifle is going to be properly sighted and whether the range will be accurately known—in fact, I want information on many points of that sort before I can come to the conclusion that the practical value of a rifle is proved. If we know the exact distance and put the rifle in a vice so as to make sure it is properly sighted, no doubt we may be able to secure better shooting, but we have to admit that at present we have a rifle with a less good trajectory—a higher trajectory—than those of foreign countries. You must judge your distance, which is not very easily done, and you lose more in accuracy than you gain by your test in a difference of fifty yards in your range. The value of a flat trajectory is something enormous and I am convinced that every practical soldier in this House will agree with me in saying that a flat trajectory is of the greatest value. When you have the responsibility of leading a company in warfare you wish to see the troops armed with such a weapon. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the British Infantryman is very well trained, and has made great advances, but I am convinced he would be at a great disadvantage unless he had a rifle with as flat a trajectory as can possibly be given him.
  Turning from the subject of the rifle, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether something further cannot be done to improve the position

  247
  of our regimental officers. We must come to the conclusion that the prospects of the regimental officers are not all that we would wish to see them. They have no promotion. We do not see any improvement in the pay of the officers, and these and other considerations must have a considerable effect upon the minds of those who are thinking of making the Army their profession. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it would not be advisable to do something to alter the climax of an officer's career. We know that at about the age of thirty an Infantry officer may expect to have risen to the rank of captain. I think it is a very poor outlook at the present moment for an officer who, after eight years' service, commands a company with credit to himself, and for the good of the regiment, as well as for the welfare of the country, that he should have to look forward to another eight or ten years in command of that company before he can possible advance in rank. That must be a great stumbling block and a great drawback to the welfare of our Army. Although a great number of officers undoubtedly do stay in the Army through many years and finally come in command of a battalion, it is not altogether to the advantage of our Army that we should have men of over forty-eight or fifty years of age in command of battalions. It is too high an age. A mistake was made when the age limit for the command of a battalion was raised from forty-eight to fifty. It would have been far better to have reduced it to forty-six. We have, at the present moment, officers in command of companies over forty years of age. I am getting on to that age myself, and I am convinced that I could not command a company as well to-morrow as I did a few years ago. At that age we have not the same activity. We are not as agile, and it makes an enormous difference. When, as we now do, we have a very small Army we should have it as youthful and active as possible. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and to those who are responsible for these matters that it might be advisable to consider whether it would not be an improvement on our present plan—if it is impossible to improve the regimental pay of our officers—to make the climax of a soldier's life the command of a company, which he might get in eight or ten years, varying accordingly whether he started below or over the age of thirty. Then the best men
  248
  could be selected from each battalion, regiment, or brigade, whichever might be taken as the fittest unit—for the command of battalions. The remainder should have made it the climax of their life to command a company, and they should be given a pension, which should be a retaining fee and make them available in case the nation required their services at any time. I think that possibly is the plan by which in time we might overcome this misfortune of slow promotion. Under the present scheme we must every day be losing many officers who have ambition, who possess original ideas that are of great advantage to the Army generally. They are going to seed, although many of them stick to their commands through pure love of the regiment. I wish to see better opportunities given them to rise to the command of a battalion earlier than at present they are able to do. We have made a great advance in the training of our officers. Slow promotion is the great drawback.
  I should like to support some remarks made earlier in the evening as regards the number of Reserve men who have to come into the Expeditionary Force before that force is in a position to be sent abroad. I quite bear out what was said by an hon. and gallant general earlier in the evening. There is no man who has a greater admiration for the Reserves than I have. I was with a company in South Africa, and that company was very largely composed of Reserve men, and, without injuring their feelings, I think I may safely say that when it started it was not so good as one could have desired. I am convinced it is a considerable weakness to any battalion to have an enormous number of Reservists thrown into it at the moment it has to become a part of the striking force of this country. It is essential that the number of battalions at home should be increased, and I believe that is the only principle by which we can prevent passing this enormous number of Reserves on to the strength of the battalions at the time they are required to act. I commend these various matters to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers.
  Major M'MICKING: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) on the very satisfactory statement he was able to make yesterday. I desire to deal with some of the points raised during the Debate. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin is not in his place.

  249
  I understood him to say that there had been a reduction of the Artillery in the Regular Army. It is true that the garrison Artillery has been reduced, but I believe it is also true that not a single horse or Field Artilleryman has been reduced, and that is a very important point. Reference has been made to what was termed the volubility of the Secretary of State for War. Lord Haldane has been going up and down the country trying to make the Territorial Force popular and, by his speeches, he has done an enormous amount of good work. The hon. and gallant Member also referred to our present Army system. He said it was a failure in South Africa. Our present system is what is known as the Cardwell system, and I maintain if you ask experts they will tell you that the system was most successful in South Africa, the Reservists, when called upon, came back and joined the Colours. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the length of the war as due to the defects in the system. In my humble judgment the cause of the prolongation was not what he suggested; it was largely due to the very inefficient supply of horses, and if there had been a proper horse supply the war would have been brought to a much more rapid conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover referred to the strength of the oversea garrisons. I suggest that the Infantry Battalions in South Africa are available to strengthen them if they need strengthening. I cannot understand why we keep those troops in South Africa at the present time, and I suggest that something of that kind might be done. With regard to the Expeditionary Force, I think the argument he used is something like this, that we must admit that an Expeditionary Force is essential to the Navy. I admit that. Presumably it will be necessary to fight on land abroad, and for that purpose an Expeditionary Force is necessary. The hon. Member went on to say that it was claimed that the numbers of the Expeditionary Force during the last few years had been greatly increased. I think that increase is well accounted for owing to the improvement in the organisation of the force. We all know that some years ago on the outbreak of war, when it was necessary to send a force abroad, it was necessary to break up the service batteries of Artillery in order to form ammunition columns, etc. That was a very wasteful way of doing things, but now, owing to this
  250
  improved organisation, we have those service batteries, and we also have ammunition columns, and the whole Expeditionary Force when it goes abroad will have each unit complete in itself.
  With regard to the Special Reserve, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman commented upon the fact that they only received five months' training, and he said why should we on these benches criticise the scheme for compulsory training when to-day the Reserve only receive five mouths' training. I would humbly suggest that it is not comparing like with like. For example, the Reserve is wanted to fill up gaps in the Regular Army and to make good the waste of war, whereas a compulsory service, Army as it is put forward by the National Service League, would be wanted to fight in its own units, and that is quite a different thing. It is not fair to make that criticism, because it is comparing things which are not alike. With regard to the speech last night by the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes), I do not intend to say a word about that part of the speech which was dealt with by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench below the Gangway this afternoon, but I should like to say something with regard to the conclusions which the hon. Member drew. He criticised the Territorial Force and attempted to show that it was not efficient in any way. What was the conclusion of the whole speech? To my mind the conclusion he came to in his speech was to the effect that it would be far better for us in this country to have 70,000 Regular troops rather than 200,000 Territorials. I am inclined to agree if you put it like that, but that is not the problem, and we must never forget that the Army system has been built up by the Secretary of State for War and his official advisers on a certain principle, and the main principle was founded on the Report of the Royal Commission on the War in South Africa, known as the Elgin Commission. It laid down on page 83:—
  "The true lesson of the war, in our opinion, is that no military system will be satisfactory which does not contain powers of expansion outside the limit of the Regular Forces of the Crown, whatever that limit may be."

  That is the reason, I take it, for the Territorial Forces, and it would be quite contrary to the spirit of that Report were we to substitute a limited Regular force for Territorial forces. It is essential that we should have numbers at our disposal.

  251
  Some references have been made during the Debate with respect to the purpose for which the Territorials should be used. In my humble judgment it is quite likely that should occasion arise they might be asked to volunteer for service oversea to make good the wastage of war. That is a very important function. Some remarks were made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the Territorial field gun, and I think the criticism was to this effect, that in the event of war the Territorials might have to meet in the field troops who were armed with superior weapons. To get a true light upon this problem we must carry our minds back to what happened five years ago. The Army was reorganised, and we had Territorial Field Artillery created, and very courageously the Secretary for War changed the Volunteer Garrison Artillery into Territorial Artillery. It was a bold thing to do, but it was done. It was a bold experiment. These men had been Garrison Artillerymen, and do you not think it would have been rather foolish to have equipped that Force with the new 18-pounder gun, that had only just been issued to the Regulars. Surely it was a wise thing in all the circumstances that the gun which had been used by the Regulars up to this should be handed over to these Territorials, so that they could practice and make themselves efficient whilst the Regular Artillery were using the new 18-pounder. I think it was a business proposition, and that it would have been unwise to spend three and a quarter millions in arming the Territorials with new field artillery before they had had any experience, and by giving them what was at that time the best field gun in Europe. Not only were these guns available, but we had in the country large quantities of ammunition, and it was a wise thing to use that up. The Territorial Artillery are quite well able to learn to shoot with their present gun.
  Mr. LEE: May I ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman intends the Territorials to learn to shoot with this particular gun, and, when they go to war, they should be supplied with another gun which they had never seen?
  Major M'MICKING: That involves a very interesting question. I seriously believe that our Navy is not only our first line but our second line of defence, and that the Territorials, if they were ever wanted, would probably be wanted outside
  252

  these shores, and I say frankly—it may not be the official view—they will be wanted to make up wastage in war, and their guns would be the 18-pounder. They would have to use them, and they could use them, because they would have to fill up batteries that were abroad. I think that is the answer.
  Mr. LEE: This is the point. These men would be trained with a 15-pounder, would they then be sent abroad to take part in war, and be required to fight with a different kind of gun from that with which they had been trained, and of which they had no experience.
  Major M'MICKING: May I point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not necessary to move these men up into the firing line at once. They would have heaps of time to learn the slight difference in drill before being moved up, and then they would take their position at the guns in the firing line in due course. I do not suppose that is the official view; I am simply giving my humble opinion. Also assuming for a moment that this gun was used in this country—I do not believe it is likely, but in such an event I believe this present gun would be valuable. We must never forget that in an enclosed country a very excellent weapon is brought more upon an equality with an inferior gun. You cannot get a very long range, and many hon. and gallant Members will know what it is to endeavour to take up a gun position in this country. That would be something in favour of the existing Territorial gun.
  I would like to say a word or two in regard to the Service rifle. Several hon. and gallant Members have spoken about the rifle, and I will say quite frankly that I have no personal knowledge of the Service rifle, but I notice one or two things. It was assumed that nothing was being done. All these years' experiment and tests have been carried out, not only with regard to the rifle, but with regard to ammunition. I am perfectly convinced that the War Office has not been idle, and a great deal has been done; and the result is that a new cartridge has been discovered, which is a very useful cartridge; and also the new rifle is being put in hand, and in due course will be issued to the troops, and a reliable weapon I hope will be manufactured. The present rifle was issued in 1903, and it would be really of interest to know, after the remarks that have been made with regard to this rifle, how many times in a decade is it proposed to rearm the

  253
  Infantry of the Line with a new rifle. Is it proposed to be done every six years or so? Only in 1903 was this rifle issued, and it does seem extraordinary that hon. and gallant Members should be complaining and saying that the rearming ought to have taken place before this. In my judgment, the policy of the War Office in regard to this matter has been very wise indeed. They have gone steadily to work, and I believe they have discovered what will be a very efficient weapon. I do not know, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us, whether the cartridge has been decided upon yet. I believe it has not. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he replies to tell us something about the efficiency of the Territorial batteries. I should like to know what is his opinion with regard to that and whether they are making satisfactory progress or not. As I said before, this was undoubtedly an experiment. It is, I believe, an experiment that is wholly justified, but it would be reassuring to know that these Territorial batteries are really doing good work, and in the opinion of the experts are likely to be really effective if ever they are needed for war. With regard to the shooting practice of those batteries, I am not satisfied with the fact that these batteries go only once every two years to practise. I do not think that is sufficient. This is not carping criticism; but I do think that they should, if possible, go every year. I know it is enormously difficult. It is a new scheme, and everything is new. I understand all that, but I should be glad to learn that steps were being taken to ensure that the shooting of these batteries should be improved, for Artillery shooting is vital. Batteries are of no use unless they can shoot. With regard to horses, I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no difficulty in purchasing the right stamp, and that the right stamp of gun-horses are available. The right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) asked hon. Members on both sides of the House whether they could furnish him with any solution of the difficulty of getting these horses in condition and have them available on the outbreak of war. That is an enormous problem. It has been suggested this evening that horses could be obtained at two years old and kept in Government depôts. I think that is a valuable suggestion. It was received on both sides with approval, but that does not altogether meet the case. After you have the horses in the depôts how ewe they
  254
  to be got in condition and ready for active service? I wonder if my right hon. Friend would think it any answer to his question if I suggested that a proportion of horses in the Regular Service after a certain age, say after the age of twelve years, should be loaned to the Territorial Artillery for a nominal sum. It is true they would not be available for Territorial Artillery, but they could be kept in condition and would be available for the Regular Artillery on the outbreak of war. I think the statement which was made yesterday by the-right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) was most satisfactory.
  Major STANLEY: One point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made caused some considerable astonishment to me who have been an officer in the same branch of the Army myself. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made use of this argument, that in his opinion members of the Territorial Artillery would be used, not entirely for home defence, but would be required to make up the wastage of war. When we asked him if he agreed that it was a wise thing that they should be taught drill with one gun and then be asked to use another when they came on active service, he seemed to think there was no objection whatever to it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has commanded a battery on active service with the greatest possible distinction, and I should be very anxious to hear the language he would have used if he had had his battery there filled up with men who had no knowledge whatever of the gun he was employing. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also observed that there had been no reduction of the Field and Horse Artillery. I believe as far as the Horse Artillery is concerned that is absolutely correct, but I think he cannot have had in his mind in the question of Field Artillery that some batteries were largely used in order to become training brigades for the Special Reserve, and to that extent the Horse and Field Artillery have been very largely reduced by this Government. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned that as far as Ammunition Columns were concerned, in the old days, at the time of the South African war, it was necessary to break up the Service batteries in order to make up the Ammunition Column. I think on that particular point he was misinformed. I happened myself to be in the Ammunition Column at the commencement of the war, and there was no breaking up of Service batteries. The Ammunition Columns

  255
  were composed entirely of the nucleus which was left to them in peace time, and the remainder of the personnel was made up entirely by Reserves.
  I should like to bring before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman one or two points which I think are deserving of attention. Yesterday we certainly had a most interesting and lucid statement from the right hon. Gentleman, in which he seemed to think they had already put the coping stone after building up a most excellent Army. In fact at one moment I am not sure I did not think he was the coping stone himself. But there are some who are of opinion that although it may be said it is unpatriotic to bring forward points in which we do not think the Army is quite as efficient as it should be, at the same time on these occasions if we know of anything it is our duty to bring it forward. I should like to put in a plea with the right hon. Gentleman as to whether something cannot be done for these unfortunate Garrison Artillery subalterns who are spending so many years in the life of a subaltern. I read not long ago, in a volume of Napier's "Peninsular War," a sentence which was wonderfully apposite to what happens in the Garrison Artillery at present:—
  "The old subaltern is a military vegetable, without zeal and without hope."
  It seems to me the way our Garrison Artillery are being treated at present is eminently suited to turn them into a "military vegetable." I do not know the exact length of service that the senior subalterns of the Garrison Artillery have, but it is something very long, quite enough to take away any zeal and any interest they may have in their profession. It is not only in the ranks of the subalterns, but when you get higher up in the regiment of Garrison Artillery that you find they are being treated in just the same way. I have experienced that officers of the Garrison Artillery who left the Academy at Woolwich two years before me are somewhere about eighteen months to two years junior to me at present. If the right hon. Gentleman could devote his attention to doing away with the injustice that they experience the whole Garrison Artillery would be exceedingly grateful. There is another branch of officers in the Artillery who are even more deserving of attention. I refer to the district officers of the Royal Artillery. They have come through the ranks, and have been promoted to that rank because they are worthy of it, and
  256
  their treatment at present is very hard on them. Five senior subalterns have got over twelve years' service in that rank, and it means a great deal to them in this way. In the first place they lose annually something like £82 in pay. There is a corresponding loss of pay again between the ranks of captain and major, and it is not as if the rise in rank meant any increase in work or in responsibility, for the captain is exchangeable with the major and the major with the subaltern. For men to do the same work but get less pay is contrary to justice. It comes harder still on them, because, later on, when it comes to the time when they have to retire—I think the age is fifty-five—it means in all probability that these officers cannot possibly come to the highest scale of retiring allowance, and it means that they have to retire into civil life with £211 a year instead of £292. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this and see if some remedy cannot be found for it. I asked him the other day why it could not be done, and he said h was simply because if you take them away at the time it would make things worse later on. I put it to him that it should be made a rule that as soon as one of the officers had earned his maximum retiring allowance he should be expected to retire then, so as to give these juniors an equal chance of obtaining the same allowance.
  There has been considerable controversy about the guns. The hon. Member (Mr. Hamar Greenwood) informed us yesterday that he intended to stay here to hear if anyone would say anything against the gun with which our Artillery is armed at present. One of the remarks I am going to make is what I have made ever since the gun was introduced into the Service, and that is as to its stability. When it was first introduced I was a captain in a Horse Artillery battery which had to carry out travelling trials to see how it travelled, and we found after a very short time that you could not trust the gun not to turn over on the least provocation. I distinctly remember having to manœuvre the battery once. We went at a trot, whereas we ought to have gone at a gallop, simply because we could not trust the gun not to turn over. I believe in the Field Artillery there has been exactly the same difficulty found. In fact, only two years ago a field battery trotting along a gentle slope turned a gun over and killed one of the limber gunners. To that extent we can say that we are not satisfied with the gun. I said that at the time we made the

  257
  trials, and I am prepared to say it again now. Another question has arisen as to the amount of head cover which is necessary with the present gun. It is a point which was not noticed at the time, I think, because all the firing drills were carried out in the open and there was no question of firing from under cover. But when later on the gun was issued to batteries in which there was a question of firing under cover it was discovered that the flash was so powerful that in the daytime even the gun fired from behind cover could be located unless it had at least twelve feet of head cover. That is an enormous handicap, because it meant that in many a case one had to take the gun much further down the reverse slope of the hill in order to get the twelve feet of head cover so as to fire from an unseen position.
  There were also remarks made about fuse setters, and the hon. Member (Mr. Hamar Greenwood) waxed somewhat facetious when he talked about "automatic artillery." He said he did not know what automatic artillery was, and the rest of his speech confirmed one in that opinion. In the first place, there was no mention made by the Leader of the Opposition or by Lord Roberts of "automatic artillery." It was very different wording, because Lord Roberts said:—
  "Owing to the Artillery fuse setters and sights not being up to date, our field guns are not automatic firing guns."
  I quite understand that the hon. Member did not understand what that meant, but to any Artilleryman it is perfectly plain and obvious. For years it has been the object of every Artilleryman to get some system of automatic fuse setting. You cannot get away from the personal error which may creep in at any time when you have fuses set by hand and set by a gunner behind the limber. I do not blame the present Government for that any more than I should blame any other Government, but in the nine years that that gun has been in existence nothing, as far as I can make out, has been done to obtain an automatic fuse setter which would do away with the personal error which must creep in otherwise. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows my opinion about the Territorial gun. He told us that it was necessary to bring that in when the Volunteer Garrison Artillery was turned into the Territorial Field Artillery. Of course, one agrees that some drastic steps had to be taken, and I should like to mention what steps have been taken. In the first place, they gave the Territorial Horse
  258
  Artillery the Ehrhardt gun, which is, no doubt, excellent in its way, and which, I believe myself, was the first step that we took in this country towards getting a respectable field gun. It was bought at the time of the South African war, and was issued to many of our Regular batteries. At the time that the new gun was being issued to the Territorial Horse Artillery I was adjutant to the Honourable Artillery Company, and I was consulted by several of the officers who were going to command Territorial Horse Artillery batteries, who asked me whether I advised them to take the Ehrhardt gun or the new gun. I gave the advice that I thought was right, that they ought to take the Ehrhardt gun, because I believed then, and I believe still, that it is a better gun than was going to be issued to them. It is all very well to say they took it because it was a better gun than the other; but it was a gun which was not good enough for our Regular Artillery, and yet they ask men who are not well trained to have to go out and fight, as they would have to do, with a gun which is admittedly inferior to the gun which we have for our Regular Army. It does not seem to me that it is fair either on the Territorial Artillery or on the country that such a practice should be resorted to.
  7.0 P.M.
  As to the question of the Territorial Artillery, I should wish also to say this in an entirely non-party spirit. I would say exactly the same thing if we were in office. I wish to say also that I have absolutely no intention of being offensive towards the Territorial Artillery themselves. It is a great disappointment to me that the Territorial Artillery does not seem to have answered even the limited expectations which were formed of it when it first came in. I have read very carefully the report of the Inspector-General as to the Territorial Force with special reference to the Artillery, and I am bound to say that it seems to me to be the report of a man who felt he could not say it was really an ecient force but did not wish to hurt the feelings of those who are endeavouring to make it so. That is the principle on which I should like to say a few words now. I do not wish to say a word against the officers and men who are trying to make the force efficient. They are deserving of all praise. They work hard within the limited opportunities they have. They give up the whole of their holidays in order to take up a very technical branch of the

  259
  Service, and it is no discredit to them to say that they are not possibly able to fit themselves in fourteen days in a way the Regular Artillery cannot do, though they are at the work every day of their life. Last year a distinguished officer who had seen them at practice said to me, "It is idle to think that they can fit themselves in the time, and if it is held that in fourteen days they are able to learn to be able to fight Continental nations, then we, who have spent all our lives in the Artillery, have been wasting our time." I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to reconsider the whole question of Territorial Artillery and to turn it into an efficient fighting force by giving it a stiffening of men from the Regular regiments. I think it would be very nearly a disaster if the Territorial Artillery had to fight a Continental army.
  I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a grievance which I think the Regular Artillery have in connection with the fitting of themselves for their profession. Last year I called attention to the fact that in order to carry a proper supply of ammunition in the Artillery the number of wagons had been so enormously increased that no battery by itself had sufficient horses to enable the men to go and learn drill properly. If there were two batteries in one place, they might borrow horses from one another and so horse the wagons that the men would be able to learn drill. Horses are not machines, and you cannot take them out every day in the week, and certainly you cannot take them out so often as is necessary. Lord Haldane last year when I made these remarks did not happen to be in the House, but he said something about the subject afterwards. He did not quote me quite accurately and I got up and said that my suggestion was made simply because I believed that under existing conditions the Artillery could not learn their work properly if they were not horsed adequately. Lord Haldane had a cheap sneer at me when he said he had not heard any complaint as to the efficiency of the Horse Artillery. I do not think there were any complaints, and certainly they were not likely to come from me. At the same time, it seems to me utterly wrong that one battery should be forced to go through its training under the conditions which prevail when they are teaching themselves their profession and fitting themselves to fight foreign nations.
  Mr. GUY WILSON: I cannot help feeling that the time of hon. Members opposite during this Debate has been very ill-spent. They have spent most of their time criticising their own legacy to the party now in office—I refer to the rifle. I grant that it is not a good rifle, but I think hon. Members would have spent their time much better if they had been endeavouring to obtain a guarantee from the Secretary of State as to what the new rifle would be. They all know perfectly well that the new rifle has been under discussion for some time; that some of the weapons have been made. What we really want is the best rifle that can be got. We do not want to go into the question of a weapon which we all admit is obsolete. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not take back anything I have said. I believe also that everybody else's rifle is obsolete. I think these criticisms are rather extraordinary, coming from the party who are mainly responsible for the armaments and the state of affairs in this country at the time of the South African war. The 16th Lancers were ordered out to South Africa, and two or three days before they sailed they had to exchange their carbines, and they went out without having fired a shot with the weapons with which they were armed. I only wish at this stage of the Debate that we should have had some guarantee from the Secretary of State that we are not going to fall into that error, and that we shall have a sufficient margin for any future mistakes we make in our rifle. I do not want to be too technical, but I would say that I believe that when you decide to re-arm a force you do not want to begin with the rifle. You should begin with the cartridge, and make the weapon to suit it. After all, at the present time there are cartridges made which give a 3,000 foot-second bullet velocity. I used one when in Rhodesia the other day. I think our rifles should have at least a 3,000 foot-second velocity. We require also that the whole of the woodwork of the stock should be in one piece. In existing rifles the stock is apt to be unscrewed and to come off. That is especially so in the mounted forces. Another thing which I hope will be put on the new rifle is an aperture sight. Those who have used a rifle know that men can be taught to shoot accurately much quicker with an aperture sight. You must also have an open sight. I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that that point was being considered.

  261
  I unhesitatingly say that the men in the Mounted Regular Force require a light Maxim gun. Anybody who has had to be with an armed force carrying a Maxim gun knows that the present gun knocks a horse to pieces in no time. In the corps to which I was attached in South Africa we gave up carrying it on the horses. We carried it in a capel cart drawn by four mules. If we had a light Maxim gun we would not knock up so many horses. We would also have the advantage of being able to carry a much larger quantity of ammunition.
  As to the speech of the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes) in regard to the standard and physique of the Territorial Force, I would say that that is a matter that rests very considerably with the commanding officers. I believe that where officers do take an interest in this matter the result is very satisfactory. I know that the hon. Gentleman himself takes a deep interest in the physique of his regiment. About two years ago he carried out an experiment which, I should have thought, was for one object, namely, to prove that the Territorials were almost equal to the Regulars in physique. I do say that they are equal in every case. I wish to know what the experiment went to prove. It was boomed in the Press at the time it was made. A body of forty men went on a forced march, and that was written of in all the local papers to show what a wonderful march it was and what these men had done. It is perfectly true that the hon. Member might say it was a picked body of men, and what they did did not prove what the whole of the regiment could do. If that is so, what was the point of the experiment at all? I think it is rather extraordinary that the officer who made that experiment should now make such a bitter attack on the physique of the Territorials. I wish to impress once more upon the right hon. Gentleman that the House ought to have the fullest possible particulars and details of the new rifle before it is adopted. We do not want to go through what we went through in regard to the 1903 pattern. If the Army was re-armed at that time, it ought to have been with the best weapon. I hope we will have full particulars of the rifle, and an assurance that we are going to have a margin of safety adequate to our requirements for the future.
  Colonel YATE: It seems rather hard on the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secre-
  262
  tary of State that the rifle which he described to us in such glowing terms yesterday should have been so summarily treated.
  Colonel SEELY: I did not say it was perfect. I said it was better than that of other peoples.
  Colonel YATE: Yet it is obsolete. The rifles of other peoples are obsolete too, and we should look forward to a general rearming. In the end it will come to that. To a certain extent I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine as to an automatic rifle and the difficulty of fire control and I would join with him in saying that an automatic rifle ought not to be accepted except after full consultation with really experienced officers. It is more important to us to have flatness of trajectory rather than rapidity of fire. My experience is that it is a matter of the greatest difficulty to get men to take the proper elevation. First of all, the stock of our rifles is made so straight that when a man puts up his rifle to his shoulder and fires, as a man does in action, he fires automatically up in the air. I should say that the rifle should be so shaped that when the man puts it up to his shoulder to fire it will take a true horizontal direction. My experience is that the man in action who is fired at generally escapes the shot, and the baggage, animals, and people who may be a mile or a mile and a-half distant may receive it. I would like to join with the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Major Willoughby) in what he said as regards the position of officers, ft is a matter of very keen regret and disappointment that neither the right hon. Gentleman opposite nor the Secretary of State in his memorandum has made any reference to the pay and provision of officers. This question was debated at some length last year. Lord Haldane spoke very sympathetically, and went so far as to say that it is a question which must be faced. I was emboldened then to express the hope that something would be done in next year's Estimates. These have now come, and not a single thing has been done. The Secretary of State's hopes have not been realised. We still see all these young officers appointed at 5s. 3d. a day, and at the end of two or three years a second lieutenant gets promotion, goes on for seven years at 6s. 6d. a day, and he may have ten years' service, and not have risen to what the Government so generously say should be granted as a minimum wage to the coal miner.

  263
  It is generally acknowledged that the pay of officers is a difficult question, but I would like to raise two or three points as to the allowances and stoppages of the officers. I have here an officer's mess bill, and the mess accounts of a regiment in England for the last quarter up to the 3lst December. Looking at these I see that the officers of that regiment had to pay for their coal no less than £12 in addition to the Government allowance. They had also to pay £16 for gas in addition to the Government allowance, which is £5 for the quarter. The Government profess to give the officers fuel, light, and fire. It is part of the officers' pay, and yet here we see that the officers to keep the mess running during that quarter have had to pay £12 for coal and £16 for gas. I would make a definite appeal to the right lion. Gentleman opposite to take this question into consideration and give the officers a proper allowance for these things. I see in the mess bill such items put down as rifle club and other things that ought to be met by the Government. Even the printing of regimental orders is charged in this mess bill. They ought to be paid by the Government. The mess allowance granted by the Government to the officers in the case of this regiment was £16 a month, and there are large charges for cleaning, washing, and other things. I would ask the Government to give the officers a more generous allowance than they get at present. I will take the question next of hire of furniture. Each officer in the bill is charged 5s. a month for the hire of furniture, a penny a day for his own quarters, and a penny a day for the mess. The Government furnish the soldiers' mess free. Why should not the officers' mess be furnished free also? There is much dissatisfaction throughout the Service at the fact that no accounts are published with regard to this furniture. Nobody knows how the money accumulated year after year is accounted for. Everything has to be paid for in full. I know of a case which occurred the other day where some things were accidentally burned and all those things had to be bought new.
  All this niggardly treatment of the officers tends to bring about the shortage of candidates for the Army which is such a serious matter at the present time. I would ask that this topic should be dealt with. It is generally supposed throughout the Service that the Govern-
  264
  ment are making a large profit out of these charges. Another question is that of married officers' quarters. Last year the right hon. Gentleman stated that the matter would be considered in next year's Estimates. I have hunted through this year's Estimates, and the only provision I can find for married officers' quarters is £10,000 for married officers' quarters on Salisbury Plain. What is £10,000 for married officers with such an enormous garrison scattered about that bleak and desolate plain? It is things of that sort that tend to drive men out of the Service. I see no reason why married officers should not be provided with quarters just as much as the married men. Then look at the expense entailed on officers when they change their quarters. The allowance granted by the Government when a regiment changes its station is hopelessly inadequate in every way. The weight allowance is calculated without the slightest consideration to the requirements of the case, and the excess charges have always to be borne by the officers. I would also ask for consideration to be shown to the officers in regard to the band. The allowance of £160 a year is absolutely inadequate for a band fund if they are not fortunate in getting outside engagements, and the band must deteriorate unless the officers come to the rescue. There, again, a proper allowance should be given to the band so that the maintenance of those bands should not be thrown upon the officers. Everyone will agree with the testimony which the right hon. Gentleman has so generously borne to the efficiency of the officers in the Service. The officer is the most loyal servant of the Government, the mast enthusiastic and zealous man in his profession, despite the smallness of his pay. If he is treated fairly and justly in these everyday matters I do not think that the Government will find the same disinclination to enter the Service as there is at present.
  For the last three years there has been practically no competition at Sandhurst. In 1909, not only was there no competition, but I do not think that there were sufficient candidates to fill the vacancies. In years gone by, when I and others entered the Service, competition was so great that there were candidates many many times over for every vacancy that was offered. I would ask the Government to form a Committee without delay to go carefully into all these questions of officers' allowances, and to see that

  265
  adequate allowances are made, and that a stop is put to all these stoppages of officers' pay that exist at present. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) referred to the question of Mounted Infantry. I raised the question last year, and got no reply. This year I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Mounted Infantry is to be definitely retained as a permanent unit in our force? If it is, then it should be formed into a permanent and homogeneous corps. At present you have got a scratch lot of men under a scratch lot of officers who come together for a few weeks training, and then disperse, probably never to serve together again. In such circumstances you can neither have esprit de corps nor can you get the best or bravest work out of the soldier. If the Mounted Infantry is to form part of our permanent organisation, let it be put on a permament footing, so that men and officers can work together. As all who have experience know, to have officers and men serving together as strangers is one of the most dangerous things in the Service. Last year I suggested that Rifle Regiments should be formed into Mounted Infantry. One or two companies in each regiment should be trained as Mounted Infantry in rotation, so that in the event of an outbreak of war the whole battalion, on receipt of the order for mobilisation should be able to take the field as a complete unit. Is not that a much better method than bringing together a lot of scratch men and scratch officers who have never served together in their life? To put such a scratch lot of men under strange officers suddenly in the field on the outbreak of war appears to me to be a most dangerous thing. I hope that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tennant) will take note of this, and will let me know what is the opinion at headquarters on the subject.
  The next question which I would like to ask is, What is to be done to increase the proportion of our guns so as to give us superiority in that respect over the armies of foreign nations? The Under-Secretary the other day said that considering the smallness of our Army it ought to be the best armed Army in the, world. I suppose he referred not only to rifles but to guns as well. If that be so, it means that the Army has got five guns per 1,000 men, whereas it ought to have six guns. The German Army has six guns per 1,000 men; our Expeditionary Force has 5-point something, and the Territorial Force has three. I think it will be acknowledged that our
  266
  small Army ought to have a larger proportion of guns per thousand, and if the German Army has six per thousand we ought to have seven per thousand. It is a question which ought to be considered by the Government, and we shall be glad to hear whether any steps are to be taken in that direction. Among other points, I would refer to the fact that we had in 1907 a Militia, 88,000 strong. That force was abolished and a Special Reserve introduced in its place. By 1910 the strength of the Special Reserve had gone down to 70,000, in 1911 to 63,000, and this year it is only 61,000. The Army is also short by 760 officers. The Expeditionary Force may have to be mobilised any day, and in the absence of officers the Special Reserve will be absolutely useless. The establishment has gone down; it ought to be 89,000, but it is 28,000 short. The Army has been reduced by 28,000, the Special Reserve by nearly 30,000, and the Territorial Force by 50,000, making about 100,000 men fewer in the Army than there was four or five years ago. If that be the only result of the Secretary of State's administration, I think the sooner we have a remedy the better.
  Then as to the employment of old soldiers. Last year the Secretary of State for War spoke very sympathetically on this subject, but again nothing has been done. The soldier leaving his regiment at the end of seven years' service is just as badly off for want of employment as he has always been. I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the different treatment which French soldiers receive in regard to employment. I have here the rules and regulations applying to the appointment of soldiers leaving the French Army to various posts. The little book was kindly sent to me by one of the Deputies in the French Parliament. It lays down distinctly three grades of appointments given to soldiers on leaving the French Army—the non-commissioned officers of ten years' service, seven years' service, and four years' service. In the higher grade they reserve for non-commissioned officers of ten years' service positions such as that of copying clerk and other clerkships, superior messengers, and various appointments of that description, of which there is a considerable number. Then, in regard to those with seven years' service, there are such appointments as that of postman and positions in the telegraph service. In regard to the men who serve four years there is a third class of

  267
  appointments. Certain conditions in the national institutions are reserved for soldiers leaving the Army. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to take this whole matter into consideration with a view to appointing a Committee to see whether rules and regulations of this sort could not be drawn up for the British Army and promulgated by the Government, so that a larger number of appointments might be reserved for ex-soldiers of the British Army. The right hon. Gentleman said we were to have travelling kitchens sanctioned by the Army. May I further ask whether arrangements could be made for a supply of travelling water-carts to supply boiled water to the soldiers? This is one of the most important things in regard to the health of the men. I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman can give mo any intimation that he will give practical consideration to the points which I have raised.
  Major GUEST: I feel myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Hull who spoke of the Debate having turned so much on the question of arms. I feel with him that it is a matter of congratulation that the Government, in face of criticism, realise the necessity of a new rifle, and that they have immediately taken this matter in hand. The Government cannot be held responsible for the fact that inventions have been discovered by other nations when they have taken in hand to supply the Army with the best possible weapon. I wish to refer to the question of the pioneers who are being introduced into the Royal Engineers. As the House knows the Royal Engineers are a very expensive and a highly technical force; but there are many duties which they are called upon to do which do not demand that high technical knowledge, and the introduction of the pioneers will effect an economy in our Army which I think the nation will be pleased to see. I observe, by the Memorandum, that each Cavalry regiment has been increased by twenty horses. That is an advantage, but I am not quite sure that it is a sufficiently great advantage. When a Cavalry regiment is mobilised for war it is sometimes quite impossible to draw the horses for mobilisation at once. The horses intended for war and mobilisation must be fit horses and ready to take the field. The system of boarding out horses does not necessarily supply the whole number of horses required on mobilisation. I think the full
  268
  number must be available, and must be available at once. The boarding-out system might be increased in order to include light Artillery horses, which is really the missing factor in mobilisation. I would gladly see a greater increase in the number of fit horses placed on the establishment of the Cavalry regiment, because it is on the fitness of these horses, and not only on their fitness, but on their training, that the result of the first contact in war may depend. The Opposition in this Debate have really criticised the whole military policy of the Government. They contend not only that the Expeditionary Force is not complete, but that the Territorial Army is not suited to the needs for which it is required. I can only say that it is a great deal better than anything we have ever had.
  Before this scheme was introduced it was a simple medley of regiments herded together into something like a command when war broke out. We have never had a concrete scheme for home defence, the defence of these islands, before. I think some hon. Members who spoke of the Territorial Force are under some misapprehension as to what the duties of that Territorial Force really are. They are not the only line of home defence in this country; they are only one of the factors of home defence under the scheme for which the Government is responsible. The real home defence of this country is in the Fleets, which are valuable, and free, and victorious at sea. If those Fleets are not sufficiently strong, and if we are not assured that those Fleets will be victorious, then no scheme and no system of Territorial Forces will be of the slightest value to this country. But if we can assure ourselves that those Fleets will be victorious, as far as it is humanly possible to foresee, then I think the Territorial Force will be amply sufficient for the other needs of defence of this country. There are only two alternatives, I think, in the Home Defence policy of this country. One is to have an absolutely superior Navy, and the other is the Continental form of conscription. I think the people of this country would prefer to put the necessary amount of money into the Fleets of this country rather than to adopt a system of conscription throughout the land. Unless you can prove to the people the necessity for conscription, I do not think it is likely to be carried into effect. Two hon. Members opposite spoke on the subject of officers. I think that is a point which does require most careful and close attention. The hon.

  269
  Member (Colonel Yate) mentioned that Lord Haldane last year, when he introduced his Estimates, certainly gave us to understand that the matter did deserve and would receive consideration. Then there is the question of officers' pay, and not only of pay but promotion, which affects the whole professional life of those officers who join the Force. I do not think it is possible to take one side of the subject—the pay—unless you review the question of promotion also.
  I think there was considerable disappointment throughout the Army, on the introduction of the Estimates, when it was seen that nothing had been done. I hope it is not impossible that something may appear during the life of this Government which will remedy what I contend is a grave defect. Simply to raise the scale of pay to officers throughout the Army would be a very costly matter, and I am not sure that it would be a very effective or efficient thing to do. What we ought to do, I think, is to raise the chances of promotion, and thereby render the officer's career far more of a profession than it is at present. That should be considered as well as the question of pay. In the junior ranks of officers, subalterns, and so forth, it would perhaps not be wise to raise the pay of young men entering the profession, but when you come to the middle ranks of captain or major, or officers of higher grade, then you have to deal with men of great responsibility, and who are, at the same time, a valuable asset to the State. These are the ranks that ought to be considered in connection with an increase of pay. I would not give the pay simply as a general rise, because the effect would be inappreciable. I would rather give it only as remuneration to men who have distinguished themselves in their profession, whatever the tests may be that are laid down by the Army Council. I would suggest the consideration of effciency under some such heads as knowledge of foreign languages, efficiency in the dangerous art of aviation, and in other directions. I would suggest that those officers who devote the whole of their energies to making themselves efficient should have the increase of pay which may be provided in order that they may maintain themselves in that efficient condition which is demanded of them. I think that would have the effect of encouraging officers to study to get out of the ordinary ruck of regimental life, and to try and push themselves forward, not only with the view to
  270
  the pay which they would receive, but as well for the distinction which such acquisition would entail.
  The question of the promotion system is a much more difficult one. At present, whether in the Cavalry or Infantry, promotion is only granted to officers within a very small narrow limit. The Cavalry only obtain promotion in their own regiments, and the Infantry only in that particular group system of battalions in which they are. I think that the system ought to be gradually widened, although I know that there will be objection to any suggestion such as that. The regimental officer's feeling for his regiment is very strong, but I think any officer who has managed to get on has always found that he has done so by breaking away from the regimental rule of life. He has had to strike out into the Army instead of remaining simply and solely the officer of a regiment. I would suggest that an officer joining the Cavalry, instead of joining a single regiment of the Cavalry, might well join either the Cavalry as a whole or join the different forms of Cavalry that there are, such as lancers, hussars, and dragoons, and that he might get promotion on that general list, which would give a much wider group than his own regiment. If the group were so widened I think the officer would have a much better chance of breaking through that block that there always is in regimental promotion. Not only would I suggest that an officer distinguished for efficient service should receive an increase of pay but, as under the system already existing in the Navy, that promotion might be given of a year's seniority or two years seniority to any officer who distinguished himself and fitted and qualified himself for that position. I think we should by doing this, raise the standard of efficiency in the Army, because I think it is an unheard of thing that there should be in the Army at present a sufficiency of officers to fill up the particular branch of the service in which they have entered, but that there should be regiments in that branch to which the officers refuse to go and will not be posted.
  I think there would be many advantages, especially to the younger branches of soldiers, in support of such a system. I should like to ask that such a suggestion may be investigated, so that it may be seen whether there is any opposition to a scheme of the kind. In my own way I have asked a great many officers what they feel

  271
  in regard to the matter. Many are shocked by the innovation, but a great many of them realise that it would be to the advantage of the officer and certainly an advantage to the Army. There is one last point to which I desire to refer, and that it with regard to the appointment of the editor of "The Army Review." I think it is a very unwise thing, however capable and however useful the officer might be, to place in the War Office a man who is directly connected with the Press of this country. I think that in the event of mobilisation there would be very great difficulty to know what to do with this officer. I hope that the Government may see their way to reconsider the appointment of Colonel Ripington into the War Office. I do not think it is a popular appointment in the Army, and I do not believe it is a popular appointment amongst the Staff. I hope they will reconsider the appointment, which I do not believe is for the good of the Army.
  Captain GILMOUR: I desire to say a few words about the position of soldiers who are leaving the Service and are not allowed to carry their Service when they go into other appointments. I really do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take some active steps to try and put those men in a better position. As a Territorial, I confess, after what has been said by some hon. Members with regard to the criticisms which have been made on the Territorial Force, that it is with considerable diffidence that I speak on this matter. I can honestly say that I believe that both officers and men of the Territorial Force have, since it has come into existence, endeavoured to put themselves upon a proper footing to serve their country to advantage. But when one comes to consider the whole question of the defences of this country, and when one realises that however much we may depend, as I think we are bound to depend, on the Navy, as our main line of defence, we are bound to confess that there comes a period in all warlike operations, if our Regular Forces are occupied in operations oversea, when, after the Navy, we are bound to fall back upon the Territorial Force for the defence of this country. While I should withstand any criticism on the Territorial Force which would decry the efforts either of officers or men to make themselves fit for the defence of the country, I do say as one of them, having worked with them for some time
  272
  now, that I am bound to confess that they fall very far short of that standard which we would desire to see attained. I think this is a matter which the people of this country must be prepared to take into very serious consideration. I confess at once that in anything which we may ask this or successive Governments to do we are inevitably brought face to face with the question of the cost to the country. I think it would be well worth the while of the people of this country to face a little additional cost now in order to try and allow the Territorial Force to show whether they can really make themselves efficient.
  I am one of those who always thought that the greatest disability under which the Territorial Force works to-day has been the fact that there are too many of the young men of this country who do not come forward and give their services as they ought to do. Whether it is possible to have some form of universal service or not is, I think, a debatable point, and I am not one of those who wish to advocate in any sense a policy such as is pursued upon the Continent, but I do say that it ought to be more generally recognised, and I believe that the time is more nearly approaching when it must be recognised, that every able-bodied man in this country ought to fit himself for the defence of the country. We have got to deal with the material which we have at the present moment. I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he cannot see his way to make a little more liberal allowance to the expenses of officers and of non-commissioned officers who attend courses and endeavour to fit themselves in the Service. My own experience is that we have a number of young officers who go into the Territorial Force, either Yeomanry or Infantry, and start with practically no military knowledge, though they are very keen upon it. When the period comes for them to go to their courses they have the greatest difficulty, owing to business reasons and business engagements, to give a guarantee of going to the courses at a time which will suit those who conduct the courses. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to meet the difficulty, must make those courses more continuous and must give wider scope and opportunity to young officers to go and do their courses. Equally, on the other hand, we have from time to time classes of instruction in the country. My own experience is that when one goes to those

  273
  courses one is told that one is to receive certain allowances. I am bound to say that the expenses of officers who go to those courses are very considerable, and have to be paid out of their own pockets. I do think that within just and fair limits, and with the items properly scrutinised, greater provision should be made whereby officers should not have to pay so much as they do at present out of their own pockets.
  8.0 P.M.
  There is one other very important point, and one in which I have taken a great interest, and that is the question of horses. It has been indicated that provision is being made for adding twenty additional horses to each Cavalry regiment. That, I admit, is a very considerable step, but I am perfectly convinced that it is by no means sufficient. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in what a sorry position our Expeditionary Force would have been this last summer if they had had to take the field. I am perfectly certain that he would be bound to admit that there must have been many of our horses in the Cavalry regiment which ought not properly to go abroad in the Service. I think he will also be bound to admit that there were very large numbers of horses that had to be very hurriedly purchased in order to make up the deficiency. I do not believe a system such as that is satisfactory. He has admitted, and I think everyone who knows anything about it w agree, as far as the horses or the Artillery are concerned, that that is one of the matters of chief concern at present. I would say, however, that my concern in the horse question extends even beyond that particular service, and I would say to him also that the policy which the Army buyers have pursued in dealing with this horse question has by no means given encouragement to the private breeder who breeds the horses required. I quite admit the difficulties which the Government buyers have to face, and I am the first to acknowledge that in a great number of cases the farmer or the breeder of horses in this country often asks a price which is outside the power of the Government to give, but I do urge that in the future closer contact should be brought about between the buyer for the Army and the actual breeder than has been the case in the past. I am quite aware that my own country, Scotland, is perhaps not the most suitable for breeding a large number of horses for the Army, but, under the schemes now being conducted, a considerable amount of money
  274
  is being spent, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—many hunting men and dealers will be able to corroborate my statement—that there are in Scotland at the present time many horses of splendid type, and if more care were taken to encourage breeders there by purchasing a certain number of horses that supply would increase. But what has been the case? During the last four or live years only some five horses have been bought for Army purposes in the whole of Scotland. One of two policies ought to be adopted—either the Government should say that it is a waste of public money to use it for the purposes of horse breeding for the Army or they should buy a certain number of horses. I have many applications from breeders throughout the country asking to whom they should apply in reference to their horses. I have advised them to make application to the Remount Officer at the headquarters of the Scottish command, but I am told by that officer that he has no power of purchasing, and that, so far as the Army is concerned, it is no use making application, because even if we did collect a certain number of horses in the country it would be impossible for the buyers to come down and buy them. I hope this matter will be gone into more thoroughly.
  What measure of success has attended the scheme of putting horses out in the country? When those horses have been called up have they come back in a satisfactory condition? I think that scheme is one which can be considerably extended, though I admit it must be done under most careful supervision. With regard to the census of horses, what proportion of returns has the right hon. Gentleman received, and are those returns, in his opinion, of a satisfactory nature? I think he would do better if he employed more remount officers in preference to some of the adjutants and others at present employed. I should be the first to admit that many of the adjutants, particularly of the Yeomanry, are very well qualified to classify these horses, but I think it would be more to the advantage of the country, as a whole, to use remount officers for this purpose rather than the adjutants, and that it would be a great advantage to the corps from which the adjutants are drawn.
  Colonel SEELY: Might I respectfully suggest that it would be a great convenience now if Mr. Speaker left the Chair in order that we might go into Committee?

  275
  It would be more convenient generally, and in one point it would be a convenience to those Members who have spoken, because until we get into Committee I cannot reply to their criticisms or to the questions they have put.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I very willingly fall in with that suggestion, as long as it is understood, as I think it is, that by the consent of both sides the general discussion will go on on Vote A. That is very important in order that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to reply to the criticisms that have been made.
  Colonel SEELY: Speaking on behalf of this side, I need hardly say that that would be our view of what is reasonable and proper, if the Chairman will consent to allow that latitude, as has been done on previous occasions. I hope, however, that we may get the Votes to provide the necessary money for the year in due course tomorrow.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have been chairman of the Officers' Qualifying Board since it started eight years ago, and I wish to urge the exceeding necessity of some measure for improving the status of officers as regards pay. I raised this question last year, when Lord Haldane not only stated that the matter had had his attention, but promised that it should have his further attention. As chairman of the Qualifying Board, I wish most solemnly to state that we have been obliged, against our will, to lower the standard year by year during these eight years. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, and it is no use hiding the fact, that, the War Office have brought pressure to bear upon us to lower the standard, and I am perfectly convinced from some of the papers it has been my duty to deal with that men are being admitted who have not reached the proper standard of education to enable them to act as officers in the Army. More than that, I have had repeated representations, as Lord Haldane knows, from the headmasters of schools that, under present conditions, unless the prospects of officers are improved, they cannot induce the better and more promising boys from public schools to enter as competitors for the profession. The War Office are going on the old exploded system which prevailed when purchase existed in the Army. They are expecting to get officers on the same conditions as when they drew them
  276
  from the wealthy class. You have now to draw from the class of men who go in for the Indian Civil Service, or for the higher posts of the Civil Service at home, men intellectually and physically active, and you cannot get them. I assure the right hon. Gentleman from my own personal experience that the War Office must face once for all and boldly the question of offering an adequate living wage. A man who has served for a considerable period, say ten years, ought to have secured an income, if his work has been efficient, to enable him to marry, or at all events, without heavy drawing upon private funds, to exist. I wish to add my testimony from an entirely different point of view to that of the hon. and gallant Member who has spoken so strongly on this point.
  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Considered in Committee.
[The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. MACLEAN) in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE).

SUPPLY.—ARMY ESTIMATES.

  VOTE A.—NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 186,600, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Message [21st February], 'That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Mr. Guland.]
Question put, and agreed to.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SMALL. HOLDINGS ACTS.
Mr. RENDALL: I beg to move, "That this House, while recognising the increased efficiency that has recently been shown in the administration by the Board of Agriculture of the Small Holdings Act, is of opinion that a conclusive case exists for the Board to put into operation Section 4, Sub-section (2), and Section 20 of the Act, and further that it should direct its attention to the serious questions of sinking fund charges, valuation of the land, management expenses, and additional rates at present charged to the tenants under the Act."
In moving the Resolution which stands in my name, I would like at the outset to say that I do so in no hostile spirit to the President of the Board of Agriculture. Hon. Members on this side of the House, at all events, rejoice to know that at last there is a business man at the head of this Board. Whilst we believe in the good intentions of philanthropic amateurs, and of the country gentlemen who so long have occupied various positions connected with the Board, we are pleased that at last we have got a business mind at the head. I also desire to say that whilst in the early days of the administration of this Act we had very great cause of complaint of the then President and of the administration of this Act, I think that cause of complaint was entirely wiped out last year when Lord Carrington took the matter into his own hands, and appointed six additional Commissioners. From that day we have really seen that the Act has been worked on thoroughly business-like lines. We rejoice all the more because Lord Carrington, when he appointed these Commissioners, did so in the face of the moans and groans of a lot of old women. I will not say where they were, but they were all around him. He had to fight a great deal of opposition. That opposition he overcame, and great credit, I think, is due to Lord Carrington.
All of us who have constantly to deal with the small holdings question in our divisions and in various parts of the country realise the extraordinary change that has come over the scene. We realise how much the work, the ability, and the energy of the new Commissioners has been appreciated during the last nine months. We realise what that work amounts to. The word "ginger" was once used in one of our Debates. There is no doubt that a little moral ginger is required to prompt the rather Conservative type of mind that monopolises the administration in certain
278
rural districts and on certain county councils. I think this moral ginger has been in many cases applied by the Commissioners, but there is a good deal more to do. The old bad days, I ant thankful to say, are gone. We remember then that we used day by day to get letters from various approved applicants all over the country who, having been approved, thought that approval meant that they would get small holdings. We all remember the letters we used to write to the Small Holdings Commissioners. We remember the answers we used to get, printed, official, stereotyped—from two overworked men—to the effect that our letters would receive attention. From that time we never heard anything more about the matter.
Now we have live Commissioners. They have already done a great deal. There is healthy emulation, regular meetings, and the result of all has been that small holdings have become much more possible within the last few months than ever before. Whilst we are grateful to the President for what has been done, I think our gratitude must be defined in the ordinary way as rather a sense of favours to come than the feeling that all that ought to be done has been done. Much remains to be done. There are, indeed, large parts of the Act still absolutely unadministered. We feel that something in the direction of administration where unadministration has obtained ought to be attended to. At this moment 130,000 acres have been applied for by approved applicants. These have not yet got their land. At the end of 1910, 7,000 approved applicants had asked for land; had been approved, and had not got the land. The figures for 1911 have not yet come out, but I shall be surprised if there is not even an increase of that number. That increase will not show a lack of duty of either the Board or the Commissioners. It will show that wherever a Commissioner goes he has done his work, and proved there is an increased possibility for getting small holdings. They will have made the people who have not thought so in days gone by think that they can get small holdings.
The policy of too many county councils still is to try and smother the Act. When they have failed to do that, owing to the action of the Commissioners, they try to smother the poor small holders. At this moment there are two counties who have not yet administered the Act at all—London and the Scilly Isles. There are also

279
five counties which have declined to buy land. Many other counties have bought next to none. A large number of counties take land on lease only. They will not buy or lease if they can by any means persuade the local landlord to let direct to the small holders. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are rather prone to think that the nearest approach to paradise is to be a tenant of the ordinary country gentleman. One of the main objects of this Act, one of the main results which we all hope to see by the working of the Act, is to try to get security of tenure for the small holder, to free him from either the kindness or any other quality which the ordinary landowner possesses. The main object of the Act is to try to free the small holder from that feeling of dependence for his very existence, his local existence at all events, upon the local landlord. How important that is we see in many cases around us to-day. We have an example of what that dependence upon the local landlord is in the county of the hon. Gentleman opposite. This was the case of the parish council, who thought they would like to put the Housing Act into operation. They passed a resolution calling upon the district council to do something. The district council communicated with the landlord, and the Local Government Board was informed. The result was that Sir Evererd Hambro gave notice to nine tenants in the village of Winterbourne Stickland to quit. Those nine tenants included the chairman of the parish council, who had lived at the place for forty-eight years, and had been seventeen years chairman of the parish council, and the vice-chairman, who had been forty years in the same house. I am glad to say that these notices have been withdrawn, but only conditionally, and there is still great fear that the people will be turned out. With evidence of that kind before our eyes, I think we may realise the justice of the position taken up by those who advocate what we are advocating. The policy of many county councils is simply to evade their duties. Their main object is to exclude the operations of the Act as far as they possibly can. The sort of job carried out is somewhat of this kind. First, the applicants apply for land. Some of them are approved. The small-holding surveyor is sent to see what land is available. He reports that everybody refuses land. Thereupon in many cases comes, with the help of agitation in
280
the country, in Parliament, and elsewhere, the Board of Agriculture. The Board at last presses that something should be done. The small-holding committee is frightened, or from a sense of duty, more often the former than the latter, and they admit something must be done. They depute one of the landlords on the committee to see a local landlord. He approaches this local landlord and says, "This beastly Radical Act is spoiling estates all over the country, but we are in great trouble, and do you not think that something should be done, and that you could grant a small part of this demand? If we got a small amount of land we could keep the Board quiet," with the result that by practically evading the carrying out of the Act an arrangement is come to and some small portion of the land is leased. A few only are satisfied, the larger number are dissatisfied, the Act is discredited, and the small-holdings committee is content. I do not pretend that that is a truthful story at the present moment, but I do maintain there is abundant evidence to prove that it was overwhelmingly true of many county councils all over England in recent times. What we say is that this demand for land should be honestly met under the Act and in no other way.
If you want an example of this method by which these arrangements with the landlords for giving land direct to the tenant are made, you have only to go to the county of Dorset. There the council up to the end of 1910 let 1,486 acres direct, and through what they call the intervention of the County Council that is through the landlords they let 1,696 acres, a larger amount than under the Act. The whole of that land was applied for by small holders who had a right to expect land under the Act and not outside the Act, because we have to remember whenever they get land outside the Act all the security of tenure vanishes. No doubt they have got the land, but they have not got the security which they would have under the Small Holding Committee. I maintain that, leasing the land is a bad policy, bad at all events for the small holders, and especially is it bad in the case of the Home Counties, where invariably there is a building clause which in effect means that if the land is wanted for building purposes by the landlord the small holders may be turned out. It is true he gets compensation, but there is very little value in compensation if he

281
has built up a market gardener's trade and made a goodwill in that locality when he is transplanted to another spot. Therefore leasing is by no means beneficial to the tenant. There is also another disadvantage in regard to leasing, and that is that the management expenses have to be added to the rent, and therefore the rent of these holdings compares unfavourably with the rent of holdings round about.
Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Are not those charges made where the county council purchase land as well as where they lease land?
Mr. RENDALL: I have not said they are. I say where the county council leases land you have two plots adjoining on which there is a very serious difference of rent. Take the case of the hon. Member's Division at Winterbourne Zelston. You have this fact that there land was formerly let at £1 5s. an acre and the county council having taken it on lease now let it for £1 17s. an acre. I fully admit a portion of that was for sinking fund and interest, but even allowing for these, there is a very considerable increase of rent, and I believe it is a fact that whereas under the old arrangement the landlord let his land to the former tenants at £1 5s., and did all the repairs himself, the county council has taken this land from the landlord at about £1 4s. an acre upon the condition that the county council do all the repairs. I want to refer also to another matter mentioned in my Resolution, and that is Section 4, Sub-section (2), in regard to the defaulting county councils. Practically this Sub-section has not been put in force at all. I believe there are two cases where threats to use it were made, but to a very large extent this important and very valuable Section has not been put into operation. Further, there is Section 20, which enables the Board of Agriculture to start experimental holdings to demonstrate the feasibility of small holdings. That has been a dead letter for four years. I may be told it was not advisable for the Board in the early stages to press county councils unduly, but rather to allow them to work the Small Holdings Act in their own way. I think that was a right and proper policy, but I think the time has now come in reference to these county councils who are, I will not say unwilling to work the Act, but who are unconvinced of the feasibility of small holdings to put this power into force.
282
In regard to the county of London, we have some approved applicants who for four years have been waiting and have not got small holdings. I do not say the London County Council is not doing its best. Their position is simply this. They cannot find within the confines of the London County Council land which they can procure at such prices as would make it worth the while of small holders to take it on. That is a case in which the Board ought to come to the rescue. These poor people in London, and in many other county boroughs like Bristol, where the land is too expensive inside for the county council to procure it at fair rent, should be helped by the Board. These people get no help from their own local authorities. You could hardly expect local authorities to try to take land outside their confines and so denude itself of a portion of their ratepayers, nor could you expect other county councils to take upon themselves the burden and trouble of finding small holdings for people who do not live in their confines. These poor people are between the devil and the deep blue sea. There is no one to help them. Here is a case for the Board to come to the rescue, and I suggest that the Commissioners concerned in the Home Counties might call a meeting of these small holders already approved in regard to their finance and knowledge of agriculture, and ask them whether they are prepared to accept small holdings at certain distances from London and try and agree upon what would be a possible distance. The Commissioners might then look for small holdings for them and find some land coming into the market near a railway station, and find out from those respective small holders whether they would be willing to go there and thus satisfy them. If that is the only thing that can be done it should be done, and a concrete plan should be placed before these people either to accept or reject, and until that is done they will not be satisfied. Take Bristol. A portion of my own Division lies within the Bristol boundary; it is several miles from the city, but inside the municipal boundary. All the land suggested near Bristol is very expensive, and they have not seen their way to take it at the rent asked for. The Bristol City Council has an enormous business undertaking to look after, and it has not seen its way to find time and money to provide small holdings outside the boundaries of Bristol. I think that is a duty we ought not to throw on them, and surely here is a case where what is known

283
under the Act as the feasibility of small holdings being provided ought to be demonstrated by the Board if it is not done by anyone else. I suggest that the President of the Board of Agriculture might look into this matter in order to see if something of this kind cannot be done. With regard to the sinking fund, the Act is drawn so that if the county council like they can throw the burden of the sinking fund for the purchase of land on the rates.
Mr. SANDERS: Under what Clause of the Act can that be done?
Mr. RENDALL: I am not prepared now to quote the Section, but I will look it up presently; at any rate, it is implied, if not expressed, that the county council has power to place the sinking fund charge upon the rates.
Mr. SANDERS: It was stated in the House of Lords by the President of the Board of Agriculture that the Law Officers of the Crown advised contrary to what the hon. Member has stated.
Mr. RENDALL: Probably if the hon. Gentleman opposite will wait he will hear what the opinion of the Law Officers is on this matter. At least we have this reliable information, that three counties—two in Wales and one in England—have chosen to act upon the law as I have defined it. I know we have been told by various Conservative speakers that there is no such right, and that those who act in this way might look for a very unhappy time when the Local Government auditor came round. The auditor has been round, and he has not surcharged them, and the sinking fund in those counties is coming out of the rates. Up to the end of 1911 the President of the Board of Agriculture stated the other day that 78,871 acres had been purchased by county councils at a price of £2,493,121. That sum includes buildings, and the actual cast of the land is £2,200,550. The whole of the sinking fund on that large purchase amounts only to a capital charge of £5,263 per annum on the land, and on the old buildings is £2,314. The sinking fund upon works adapted and new buildings is £4,040, so that at this moment, for the whole of the small holdings and new buildings up to the end of last year, the total sinking fund amounts to £11,617. What a small sum this is spread over all the various counties which come under this Act! If you want an example of how small it is, take the county of Gloucestershire. We have got the fact that there 1,802
284
acres have been purchased by the county council. The sinking fund for the land only amounts to £122 13s. a year, and for the land and buildings the sinking fund is £266. This amounts to a rate of .039 of a penny, or, in plain language, it is only one-twenty-fifth of a penny rate. That is to say, in Gloucestershire to-day the whole sinking fund for nearly 2,000 acres of land bought by the Gloucestershire County Council would be met by a rate of one-twenty-fifth of a penny. I think it is much fairer to put the sinking fund on the rates than on the tenants. I am aware that that opinion is not unanimously held by Liberals, but I think it is a fair thing to do. When county councils can buy land and pay a sinking fund charge which lasts over eighty years, if they can buy at reasonable rates and are able to pay back the money in such an easy way, it is hard that they should not be able to do that out of the pockets of the ratepayers, because the ratepayers will be acquiring valuable land.
I am aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite object to this policy of throwing this charge on the rates. I know that they much prefer to make speeches in their own Divisions in which they say, "Look at this Radical Government, here they are buying land; you have to pay for it and they get it." That is a nice platform point and as long as county councils interpret the Act in the way hon. Members do they will be able to say those things. I think it is a very evil thing. An alteration can be made under the Act as it stands. As I have already stated, three counties have done this, and not generosity but justice demands that other counties should do the same. I know hon. Members opposite are in favour of a purchase scheme, and they are not prepared to put a sinking fund amounting to £11,000 a year on the rates, although they are prepared to allow individual purchasers to borrow millons of money in order to purchase small holdings. If they are in favour of the larger scheme they should not begrudge a few thousands in favour of the small holders under the present system. The valuation of these small holdings has been a bitter pill for the small holders to swallow. Really it is a small man taking land from a large man, and the valuation has been dead against the man who is taking the land and all in favour of the man who is selling it. The ordinary method is to have a valuer representing both sides and the Board of Agriculture can appoint another valuer of the

285
highest probity and with great experience, but they are to all intents and purposes landlord's men. I am not anxious to add to what hon. Gentlemen opposite call "jobs," but I think it would be a good thing if this business could be administered in a regular consistent manner by one valuer to be appointed for a certain time to act in a given district. I think it is undesirable that we should be constantly having eight, ten, or even twenty different men acting for one district. I think it would be better to appoint one for a particular district because he would have experience there. Whilst I do not say he ought to have more sympathy with the small holder than with the landowner, at any rate, he ought to be able to hold the balance evenly. I do not think a man who is continually valuing for the landlord is really capable of doing fair and even-handed justice. His proclivities and tendencies are all in favour of the landlord. He does not like the Act to start with—he regards it as interfering with the old customary ways as between landlord and tenant, and when he is asked to value land for small holdings his tendency is to assume "Here is a nice landlord, who has always been a kind friend to the poor; why should we practically force him to give land to these small holders?" I think that is a very natural attitude for a man who is practically living off this kind of person to take up.
Mr. SANDERS: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to land bought compulsorily or to land bought voluntarily?
Mr. RENDALL: I am referring to land bought compulsorily. It is valued by a land agent appointed by the Board of Agriculture.
Mr. SANDERS: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The valuer is appointed by the Government.
Mr. RENDALL: Quite so. He is appointed by the Board, but he is one of a certain number of experienced men on a list who are from time to time appointed to value. I do not say a word against these men's probity or their knowledge and experience, but we are all of us the victims of our environment, and I do say that a man who is continually living on one set of people will be likely, if called in once a year to be rather in favour of the land-lord than in favour of the small holder. I think, therefore, a case is made out for the President of the Board of Agriculture
286
to try and alter the existing arrangement, and to place the matter in the hands of one man for a given time for a given district, so that he can gain experience. I gather from an answer given a few days ago that if we combine management expenses with insurance and repairs the amount generally payable is about 17½ per cent. At the time the Small Holdings Act was passed its sponsors talked very generously in regard to the money the Treasury would bestow on the Board for the working of it; and Clause 21 was passed for the purpose of stating on what subjects they were not to be generous with this money. The only three things in regard to which their generosity was curbed were these: The Board was not to be allowed to pay the purchase price of the land; they were not to be allowed to pay compensation, and they were not to be allowed to pay rent. Those, three things were specifically excluded, and morally, if not legally, everything not thus specifically excluded was therefore inferentially included. Consequently, the Board was armed with powers enabling it to pay management expenses, insurance, and repairs. I am not going to suggest it ought to do anything of the kind, but the Board has had given to it £100,000, and has spent it in a somewhat niggardly way, although they were far more generous last year than in previous years, and I do say they might spend it more freely; and, if they do, I hope they will be able on the assurances given at the time the Act was passed to get more money. It seems to me if it would be wrong to throw the expense of repairs on the State Fund, it would not be wrong to throw the expenses of management on it. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask. The Board has power to do it, and we shall look forward to the right hon. Gentleman being able to say something sympathetic on the matter.
I do not say that in the alteration of the rateable value of small holdings we have to complain of the action of the Small Holdings Committee, but I do say that owing to the system under which the Act is now being administered a sense of very grave injustice exists in the minds of smallholders, and it ought, if possible, to be removed. A small holder has to pay rent, sinking fund, management expenses, insurance, and repairs, and all these, or at least most of them, are lumped together as rent. He is consequently asked to pay a very much higher rate upon the land he occupies than was ever paid upon it before. There are plenty of cases throughout England where the farmers' rates amounted

287
to 10s. or 15s. per acre, and where the small holder is paying nearer 30s. per acre. That is not wholly due to the improvement of his holding or to buildings being put up, it is due to the fact that the management expenses and those sort of things have increased the rent upon which the assessment has been based. I think we ought to have some expression of opinion at least from the Government as to the justice of the case, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he has not power under the Act, will seek power to deal with the matter. There is a very great sense of injustice now, and there ought to be some opportunity of trying to remove it. We want the right hon. Gentleman to make use of Section 4, Sub-section (2), which deals with the defaulting or the unconvinced county council. We want the right hon. Gentleman to try and make use of Section 20 which deals with county councils who refuse or are unable to administer the Act, and the feasibility of dealing with large numbers of applicants who have as things are no hope, whatever of getting small holdings during their life. Further, in the schemes the Commissioners are bringing before him, we ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence and to get them to use their influence to give every prospective small holder the advantage of holding his land inside the Act and not outside it. With regard to the sinking fund, we ask that the right hon. Gentleman should circularise the county councils as soon as the opinion of the Law Officers is to hand, pointing out the small charge on the rates, and I think he might recommend them to bear it. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to regularise the valuation and to give consideration to the rating question. If those things can be done, I am quite sure the possibility of administering this Act will very much increased. We, on this side, will certainly do all we possibly can to aid the right hon. Gentleman in that work. By so doing I am perfectly certain the Act will become more popular, and we shall have a larger and larger number of men coming forward for small holdings.
Mr. WINFREY: I am glad to have the opportunity of seconding this Resolution. I am also glad it commences by acknowledging the substantial progress that has been made in securing land under the Act. Perhaps not so much as the most sanguine hoped for, but still those of us who know
288
the enormous amount of work entailed, consider it a matter for congratulation that in three years we have secured 132,000 acres of land, and put on it upwards of 7,000 tenants. It fell to my lot as chairman of a Small Holdings Committee to try and administer the Act of 1892, and although the county council with which I was then connected succeeded in purchasing 250 acres of land—more than any other county council did—we soon came to a deadlock because we had no driving force behind us and the Act became a dead letter. But, under the present Act the compulsory powers granted and the setting up of two Commissioners, have produced a wholly different state of things, and in several counties, as will be seen by the return, real progress has been made, notably in the eastern counties. We will take five counties in which there are seven county councils. Cambridge has 6,030 acres; the Isle of Ely 3,025 acres; Huntingdonshire 3,271; Lincoln 9,329; and Norfolk 8,271, or a total of, practically, 30,000 acres, and 2,603 tenants have been placed on that land. I am glad that the Norfolk county council still heads the list, and I believe that in my own constituency they can boast that they have got more land under this Act than any other district. I feel it due to members of county councils throughout the country to congratulate and thank them for the valuable services they have rendered in this matter. I have personal friends who have worked very hard indeed, some of them have travelled thousands of miles in order to attend inquiries.
Naturally after four years working those of us who have watched closely and sympathetically the administration, have discovered certain weak places, and we think the time has arrived when attention should be called with a view to finding a remedy. I always felt it was a misfortune that we started with only two Commissioners. At the time the Board of Agriculture did not seem to realise the volume of work which would inevitably fall on this Department, and the result naturally was a considerable delay in sanctioning the schemes sent in by county councils, and more especially I think was found impossible for these two Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Act and assist backward county councils by preparing reports and urging on the preparation of schemes. That has been remedied by the appointment of six additional Commissioners, and I cannot help thinking that it will

289
redound to the credit of Lord Carrington who recognised that we agricultural Members had made out a good case for the appointment of additional Commissioners, and boldly and fearlessly made those appointments. So far as the eastern counties are concerned, I may say we are well pleased with the two Commissioners who have been allotted to us. They have set to work in a business-like manner, and have been welcomed by the county councils.
9.0 P.M.
Regarding this Resolution and the criticisms of a friendly character which I propose to make, I come first to what I am inclined to think is the most important, and that is the sinking fund charges now added to the rent. I know there is a difference of legal opinion whether the Section which says that rents are to cover all expenses is to be interpreted as including sinking fund charges. The Board of Agriculture are not now enforcing the adding of these charges to the rent, although they did at first. As my hon. Friend has said, three county councils are not now doing it. I am convinced there is a growing volume of opinion not confined to one particular party against doing so, and I think it cannot be defended under all the circumstances of the case. I am prepared to admit at the outset I do not for one, take up an attitude of hostility to it. I was passive. I felt the foremost duty was to get hold of the land. It has only been since I have witnessed the other charges for management, etc., added to the rent and the consequent increase of assessments, and the resultant total rent the small holder is called upon to pay, that I have come to the conclusion that the sinking fund charges ought not, at any rate, to be put on the tenant. Especially is this so when I find that the placing of these charges on the tenant is a severe handicap and a great hindrance to the proper equipment and development of the holding. I am convinced from my long experience as chairman of the Small Holdings Association, which now controls 2,000 acres of land, that to make the small holdings movement the success we all want it to be we must do all we can to encourage the full equipment of the land; we must make self-contained economic holdings, where men have a sufficient acreage to live upon, and there must be a decent house and sufficient buildings. True, other holdings are required, such as accommodation land for blacksmiths, publicans, and villagers, but there is, and
290
still will be, a great demand for self-contained holdings with sufficient land for a man to get his living upon and with decent houses and buildings. There is not much difficulty with the sinking fund charges on bare land; they amount to 4s. 9d. per £100, without houses and buildings. It is when you come to purchase a large farm and equip it; when you have to put up additional buildings, it is then that the sinking fund charges on the tenant become a burden. At the present time we are only permitted to borrow on existing buildings for forty years, and the sinking fund charges are £1 3s. 8d. per £100. If you put in new brick houses and buildings you can get the money for fifty years, and the sinking fund charge is 15s. 3d. per £100. If you build them of creosoted timber and corrugated iron, you can only get the money for twenty years, and then the sinking fund charges amount to £3 10s. 8d. per £100, plus £3 10s. interest, and that means practically that the small holders are paying a rent equal to 7 per cent. on that class of building. Say, for example, we acquire a 40-acre holding at a cost of £25 per acre, that is £1,000 for the land, the sinking fund on that would be £2 7s. 8d. New house would cost £250, with a sinking fund of £1 18s. 2d. If you put up £150 worth of creosoted timber and corrugated iron buildings, you get a further sinking fund charge of £5 6s. Then you spend £15 on fencing, and the sinking fund is 15s. 6d., and perhaps a £l0-note on better roads, paths, and so on, and that is 7s., so that for the equipment of forty acres you pay £10 14s. 4d. sinking fund, which works out at 5s. 4d. per acre. If you do that for twenty acres, and in my Constituency where there is growing of fruit, plenty of men have been able to get a good living out of twenty acres of land which may cost £50 an acre, and if you have to put the same equipment on that it means that you have to pay 10s. an acre, because you have to spread the £10 over twenty acres, instead of over forty acres. But if it stopped here, with the sinking fund charges you might argue that as the rent is only based upon 3½ per cent., because you are able to borrow at 3½ per cent. interest, that the sinking fund charge should be reasonably borne by the tenants. You might say that that was a fair rent, seeing that the tenant gets security of tenure, but it does not stop there, and I want to press this point upon the President of the Department of Agriculture.

291
The county council having ascertained the minimum rent, that is the interest upon the purchase money plus the sinking fund, there comes upon the top of that 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. for other expenses, for management, repairs, insurance, and so on, so that the tenant is called upon to pay in addition to the original rent, as we may call it, 3s. in the £ for management expenses. If his rent is £2 an acre, and in a good many of the small holdings in my Constituency it is a great deal more than that, that means 6s. per acre for management expenses, and if a man has a farm of forty acres it is £12 which he has got to pay to the county council for management expenses. Not only has he to pay the sinking fund, but he has to keep up the house and buildings in a thorough state of repair during the whole of that time.
What is the life of these houses and buildings? He has to pay, and indeed buy, for that is what I must call it, the corrugated iron building in twenty years. I have known such buildings which have been up for twenty years and have been kept in good repair, and are almost as good to-day as when they were erected. A good house, a well-built house, lasts a good deal longer than fifty years. I should like to give some actual facts with regard to this showing how hardly it works out. I will take one case which I know very well in Lincolnshire in the Holland Division, where the sinking fund amounts to 6s. per acre. We have a farm in Norfolk which is rather well known, the Ringer farm, where they had a dispute with the owner over the purchase. The rent on this farm for years was 15s. an acre. Now the men have got to pay sinking fund charges, management expenses, etc., and the average rent of this farm is not 15s. an acre, but 28s. 6d., and £15 is the charge for the farmhouse and buildings. That is a conclusive statement. I have the case of a farm in my own Constituency in which the county council gave £8,000 for 300 acres. There was a farmhouse and buildings and two cottages on it. The farmhouse was converted into two dwellings and the cottages had dairies added to them, and there was very little expense of equipment. The rent of that farm to-day—I have got it from the various tenants—is £475. They are paying thus 6 per cent. upon the purchase money, and I venture to say that none of us who know anything about the value of land will consider it is a reasonable rent. I can give another
292
case at Moulton, in Lincolnshire, where on one Crown farm of 900 acres they are paying £500 more rent than the previous tenant paid.
But that is not all. We come now to the question of the increase of rates. My hon. Friend has dealt with that, but he has not given a case in point, and as one fact is worth twenty arguments, I will give the President of the Department of Agriculture the particulars of a case in the district which he visited the other day. I am afraid it was a very hurried visit, and I wish he had had more time. Take the Crown farm at Wingland, which was taken over and is now let in small holdings. In 1907 it was assessed at £1,228. We took it over and equipped it and put on a number of houses and buildings, and the land itself has been increased on assessment by £169 per year. The new assessment on houses and buildings was £124, so that you get an increased assessment altogether of £293. The county rate at the present time is 1s 2d. in the £. Therefore the small holders upon that one farm are paying the Norfolk County Council £15 a year extra in county rates. I cannot help feeling that the county council have got it all ways. They get the sinking fund charges out of the tenant, they get the management expenses upon a liberal scale, and they get an increase of rates at the same time. I really do not think they ought to have it all ways. Seeing that the county council becomes possessed of this valuable property, some of it at the end of twenty years, some at fifty to eighty years. I think the sinking fund ought not to fall upon the tenants.
I ask myself the question, ought it exclusively to fall upon the county? That is a question which, I think, cannot be discussed here and now. But I should like to point that the nation also is getting a benefit by the establishment of these small holdings. The towns in the vicinity are also getting a benefit. They are already benefiting and getting an increasing population. The Lincolnshire market towns are benefiting by the fact that these small holders are coming in—and spending money and trade is good and the nation as a whole is benefited. In those circumstances I do think that the sinking fund charges might in some way be divided between the county councils and the nation. My hon. Friend has told you something about the land purchased. I have not gone into it throughout the whole

293
country, but in the county of Norfolk, my own county, we purchased 4,859 acres, and the sinking fund is £770, which is one-seventh of a penny in the £, if we were to pay it out of the rate. The other day the Lincolnshire County Council made a purchase of 400 acres of land, costing £20,000. That was £50 an acre. It was very good land, and the sinking fund on that comes to £50 a year, so that you see if you divide 400 acres by eighty it means that the county council is redeeming five acres of that land every year. They are getting cheap money from the Government, and for every £50 they redeem five acres of that good land which cost £50 an acre to buy. I have got to this point—that I do not think it is necessary, even under the present Act of Parliament, that this sinking fund should be paid for by the tenants. I have here a statement sent to me to-day by the clerk of the Whaplode Parish Council. This happens to be the very first land purchased under the Allotment Act of 1887. He says:—
"I have much pleasure in giving you the information you seek. The annual instalment of principal is not paid by the tenant but is borne by the parish. The tenant pays the interest on the loan, rates, taxes, and tithes. The Holbeach Urban District Council also adopt this method in respect of the land purchased by them for allotments, and their rents to-day have been reduced to £2 10s. an acre."
They borrowed originally, in 1889, £950. The rate of interest was £3 15s. per cent., and the principal owing at the present time is £755, so they have paid off £200. The principal paid during the year by the parish is £14 0s. 7d., and the interest paid by the tenants in the shape of rent is £26 13s. 4d., and the amount of principal still owing is £740. So under that Act of 1887 it is quite evident that the tenants are not being asked to pay sinking fund charges. I cannot help feeling that what the parish councils are allowed to do the county councils will, of course, be allowed to do also. It is a point for considerable discussion, whether the periods of loans, at any rate for houses and buildings, should not be considerably increased. Another point which wants consideration is that when parish councils under this Act of 1908 buy land for allotment purposes they can only borrow money for fifty years, whilst the county councils are allowed to borrow for eighty years. There are several illustrations of it in the same parish, the county council buying the farm and borrowing the money for eighty years and the parish council buying the self-same sort of land only for fifty years, the result being that they have to charge increased rent. I think a case has been made out generally
294
that the tenants should not pay. It is not just. Most of these tenants are hardworking, patient, self-reliant men, but because they are all that surely they ought to be protected from injustice. I believe we have the sympathy of the President, and I urge him to find a way out for us. I say nothing of the political cry of our opponents, but it is very difficult to answer them when they try to make party capital out of the present position of affairs.
I come to Section 20, which is referred to in the Resolution, the Section which has not been put into operation, that is that the commissioners have power to demonstrate the feasibility of small holdings. I cannot help feeling that the Board have interpreted that in much too narrow a sense. I think there was an excuse when we only had two commissioners for their hands were very full, but I do not think there is any excuse now that we have eight commissioners, and the time has arrived when we ought to put the Section into operation. I am convinced that there is no way of helping townsmen unless you put it into operation. I was speaking at Islington two years ago: Two young men came to me and said, "We want to go back on the land." They told me who they were, and I remembered their father, who was a very respectable farm foreman in Lincolnshire. I know these young men had a thorough training in agriculture. They came to London and were engaged in the potato market. They had saved between £200 and £300 apiece. They would make splendid small holders. The London County Council has done nothing for them, and I advised them to write to Lincolnshire and see if the Lincolnshire County Council would do something for them. The reply they got was, "We are so busily occupied in providing land for the men who are already resident down here," so there is no chance for these able young men to get down into the country unless you demonstrate the feasibility of small holdings in their case by instructing your commissioners in their different areas, when suitable farms come into the market, to purchase them. I know there is no compulsory power in this Clause, but they could purchase a farm when it comes into the market and bring down these men from the towns; and what is true of London is true of all our large towns.
Now a word with respect to the Default Clause. The Board of Agriculture, up till now, has been, I think, rather too slack in putting this Default Clause into operation where county councils have moved too

295
slowly. I know the difficulties At the same time in the two cases in which they have put the Default Clause into operation they have been very successful. The case I know best is in the Soke of Peterborough, where I am a member of the county council, and I should like to tell the House what has happened in this particular case. We commenced with respect to this particular farm in March, 1908, directly after the passing of the Act. We interviewed the applicants; we came to the conclusion that they were suitable and that they were deserving. We held no fewer than thirteen meetings from March, 1908, to February, 1909. When we had made the necessary inquiries we prepared a scheme. The committee decided, when they could not get the land by voluntary means, to go for compulsion. A scheme was approved by the Board, and a valuer was appointed, who made a valuation, and we went on until June, 1909, when, to the annoyance of the small -holdings committee, the county council itself rejected the scheme. They said they would not put into force the compulsory powers, so we were at work from March, 1908, until June, 1909, and then we had the whole of our work upset. In October of the same year the Small Holdings Commissioner addressed a special meeting of the county council, urging them to reconsider the position. The county council told him they did not intend to exercise compulsory powers, and then the Board of Agriculture, instead of proceeding with the Default Clause as they ought to have done without further delay, waited until November, 1910. They waited for thirteen months before they called upon the county council to prepare a scheme. I cannot help feeling that that was much too long to wait, and if that is taking place in other parts of the country it is quite evident that we are moving too slowly. The county council declined, notwithstanding the letter from the Board, and in February, 1911, the Commissioners prepared a scheme.
The Order was made for carrying out the scheme in March, and in June the governors of Brown's Hospital, who had refused the land before, gave way. The chairman of our county council, who is also one of the governors of Brown's Hospital, like a good sportsman, saw that the game was up and advised the governors to give way. They gave way and they said, "You can have the farm at the value put upon it by the Board of Agriculture's valuer." So we are going to get possession
296
of the farm at Michaelmas, 1912. We have had four and a half years therefore, but have been triumphant at last. I think if the Board of Agriculture would do more in putting into operation the Default Clause it would be very helpful in many other cases. The success of this small holdings movement is perhaps the one question in which I am most interested. Much good work has already been done, and very few mistakes, I think, have been made. I look forward to still greater progress in the near future.
Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I should not have intervened in the Debate except for the fact that Dorset County Council, of which I am a member, was mentioned on two or three occasions by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution (Mr. Rendall). It seems to me that this attack upon the Board of Agriculture has been, to say the least of it, a very mild one indeed. The Seconder of the Resolution (Mr. Winfrey) seemed very satisfied with the work done by the county councils as a whole. To my mind the chief part of the attack which has been made by both hon Members had very much better have been directed against the Local Government Board than against the Board of Agriculture, because it is on the matter of loans and the period for which loans are granted that difficulties have arisen. During the time I was vice-chairman of the small holdings committee I found it was the Board of Agriculture which had the approving of schemes, while the Local Government Board fixed the rate of interest. Rumour said at one time that there was a certain amount of feeling between the two Boards as to what rates of interest should be allowed in respect of the various things which the Local Government Board required to be done. I remember a case in which we proposed a scheme, and sent it up to the Board of Agriculture. It was agreed to by that Board, but the Local Government Board sent down another inspector to view the land. The Local Government Board insisted on an entirely new drainage system, which the Board of Agriculture did not think necessary, and this hung up that particular scheme for some nine months. That was due entirely to the action of the Local Government Board, and not the Board for which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) is responsible. They also on several occasions gave a great deal of trouble about the terms on which loans were granted.

297
The hon. Member quoted some figures showing the terms on which loans were allowed for fencing. I think the Local Government Board were prepared to allow a period of ten years for wood fencing and fifteen years for iron fencing. Of course, any hon. Member who has had much experience of the life of fencing would say that fifteen years is a very short time to allow for iron fencing. It would last probably forty or fifty years at least. It is owing to the action of the Local Government Board that hon. Members have been able to bring forward this charge as to making land so expensive. The hon. Member for the Thornbury Division (Mr. Rendall) first of all made some remarks in relation to the fact that the county council got some 1,600 acres taken by small holders direct from the landowners, and he said that was bad policy. I want to give the House two instances showing how these things occurred. There was a Small Holdings Committee formed, and we got an offer of some land from the landlord to let to the Small Holdings Association, and at the same time he offered the land direct to the association if they liked to lease it direct from him without the intervention of the county council. Everyone who desired to become a small holder preferred to take the land from the landlord instead of from the county council, because they knew that by doing so they would avoid all those management charges, and they were satisfied also that the terms given by the landlord would be equally good. There is a property which was sold last spring to, I believe, some sort of land speculator, and about two months ago the land was put up again, for sale. Instead of asking the county council to buy it for the existing small holdings, the occupiers preferred to get representations made to the landlord asking him to purchase the land because they preferred to be under him rather than to be under the Small Holdings Committee of the county council.
Mr. RENDALL: May I ask if it was not owing to the fact that Dorset County Council had such a reputation that they would rather have the holdings from anywhere than from them?
Sir R. BAKER: I do not think there was anything of that nature, or that the county council had a reputation of that sort. These men liked to come under a landlord who, they knew, would give them good security of tenure. No landlord voluntarily turns out his tenants for any reason
298
whatever if they are paying their rent. There is hardly a case where that is done. I do not propose to go into the other case referred to by the hon. Member. It appeared to me to be more a case in regard to housing than small holdings. But I might point out to him in regard to that case that I believe the facts are as follow: The district council were applied to by the parish council to provide more housing in the village. The landlord, who owns the greater part of the land there, was prepared to provide sufficient houses for all the people working on his farms, or on the farms owned by him and rented by farmers. He is, I believe, putting up a certain number of houses, chiefly cottages, but there are certain men in the district working for other landlords, and who are living there. He said that if there were not sufficient houses for his own tenants those men who were working on farms belonging to other landlords must make way for those who were working on his own farms. He did that by giving notice to the people in that village not working on his farms.
Mr. RENDALL: People who had been forty-eight years in one house.
Sir R. BAKER: The landlord says he will provide houses for those on his own land. That is the sole justification which the hon. Member has for the attack he has made. He also referred to a farm where there has been an increase of rent. I think it is a most difficult case to deal with. It is a case as to which, I think, there has been a great deal of exaggeration on the part of those who make the attack. I could give evidence to show that there has been an enormous amount of exaggeration. One of the members of the Dorset Small Holders Committee and one of the members of the sub-committee who managed that farm from the start is the agent of the hon. Member for East Dorset. He has always acted thoroughly loyally with the county council. He agrees that we have done our best to make this farm a successful colony of small holders. He never made any attack on us, and as he is a prominent Member of the party opposite naturally he would attack us if we did anything outrageous in any way.
The hon. Member said that we had taken land at 24s. 6d. for which the farmer before was paying 25s. In the first case the landlord did the repairs, and in the second, we did. Our reason was perfectly simple. We said we have got to adapt, as far as possible, old existing

299
buildings for a big farm to small holdings. All that we can require the landlord to do is to put in repair the existing buildings as suitable for a big farm. Therefore it was much more advisable, instead of forcing the landlord to do so, that we should take at a slightly lower rent and put them into repair for small holdings. If we had forced the landlord to do the repairs as for a large farm the money would have been entirely thrown away, because the work would have been of no value for the purpose which we desired to carry forward. On the question of valuations I might point out that there are two sorts of valuation with regard to these small holdings. There is a valuation for compulsory working—there is no valuation where the purchase is by agreement as between purchaser and seller or in the case of a purchase by auction where the valuation is done by the county council—but there is also the valuation as between the incoming tenant and the outgoing tenant, and it is this valuation to which the hon. Member referred. In that case there was no real reason why the valuer should be more prejudiced in favour of the outgoing than in favour of the incoming tenant. I think that the hon. Member suggested that there was a natural bias in favour of the landlord because he was a landlord which led him to increase the valuation, but there is no probability that the land agent is going to get any money out of the outgoing tenant and there is no reason why he should be biassed in favour of him.
An attack was made on the action of the county council for charging the sinking fund to the tenant instead of paying it themselves. Three county councils have taken the view that they would be legally right in paying the sinking fund themselves, but other county councils have preferred to do what they believed to be the legal thing and to charge the small holders. I would ask the hon. Member opposite, who is anxious that the sinking fund should be paid by the county council, which refers either to the purchase of land or to the adaptation of buildings, what justification have you for purchasing land to adapt it, for a man taking, say, forty-five or fifty acres, and paying for it out of rates paid by the ratepayers to the county council? By paying the sinking fund for him you thus allow him to get his land cheaper, and the slightly additional rating may fall on a man who has sixty or seventy acres, or even less,
300
because he does not happen to be a county council tenant. There is no justification for giving an advantage to these county council tenants over other small holders or farmers in the district. You cannot justify spoon-feeding one class of tenants over all the others. The county council represent the ratepayers of the county. What are the ratepayers going to get out of paying these sinking fund charges? From the national point of view there may be something to be said for paying them, but there is no justification for even a slight addition to the burden of the ratepayers of the county, who are paying far too many national charges already. It is argued that it is hard on the tenant to pay sinking fund charges on the purchase of land which in eighty years' time is going to become the property of the county council, but it would be a hardship on the existing ratepayers of the county council, who are not likely to be alive in eighty years, to pay an additional burden because the county council is going to own the land in eighty years.
From the national point of view of the desirability of getting more people on the land, and to avoid the hardship on the tenants, the nation might undertake the sinking fund charges, but there is no shadow of a case for making the county councils bear this additional charge. The Resolution of the hon. Member asks to have put into operation two Sections of this Act. The first is Sub-section (2) of Section 4, which says that if county councils decline to undertake the duty the Board is to do so. The only case made out has been with regard to two counties. As to one of them, I cannot say anything. With regard to the London County Council, I think that for the sake of one particular county council it would be much wiser that it should be done by negotiation between the Board and the county council rather than by operation of the compulsory powers. As regards Section 20, the powers of the Board are definitely limited. They have got no power to borrow or to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of this Section of the Act, so it is unnecessary to have a Resolution which calls for putting these Sections into operation, which really would have very little effect. If hon. Gentlemen will turn their attention rather to the Local Government Board than to the Board of Agriculture with regard to the question of charges generally, and the expenses consequent upon small

301
holdings, I think it would probably be very much more valuable in the interests of small holders than is this Resolution.
Sir HARRY VERNEY: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down, but it did not seem to me that he added much to our discussion in telling us that one or two isolated landlords are good to their tenants. I do not think anybody in the House will dispute that.
Sir R. BAKER: It was only in reply to the hon. Member for the Thornbury Division (Mr. Rendall), who attacked a county council in respect of 1,600 acres that were settled.
Sir H. VERNEY: The hon. Baronet will agree that both he and I are model landlords, but that hardly adds to our discussion. I, too, welcome in the Resolution the reference to increased efficiency, which I think we on this side of the House agree is due to the new Commissioners. I am rather surprised at what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand, because his words on agriculture carry weight in this House. In regard, first of all, to the Commissioners having too wide powers, as I understood him, and his considering it undesirable that they should interfere in questions of details in regard to individual applicants, I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman has had any experience of the actual administration of small holdings, but since the new Commissioners have been appointed, speaking of the county I have the honour to represent, and being a member of the Small Holdings Committee, I can tell the House that certainly twice quite recently individual cases occurred in which there was a deadlock, and in which we have successfully appealed to the Small Holdings Commissioners, who intervened and smoothed matters over; otherwise it would probably have been necessary to resort to compulsory powers. Hon. Members opposite appear to take pleasure in the fact that there have been fewer compulsory orders this year than in the year before, and I think that is in a great measure due to the way in which the new Commissioners have been able to smooth over individual difficulties and help the working of the Act. I want to refer particularly to one or two grievances under which small holders actually labour. First of all, there is the question of the valuing of the land. I think the hon. Baronet will bear me out that under the county
302
councils there are at present admirable valuers who do the work of valuing in a satisfactory way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear." "Manchester 580!"] The small holders who are more particularly affected continually show their gratitude to the Liberal Government for having passed this Act. The value of land has been decided again and again by the ordinary valuer, who has proved himself to be quite right in his figures, which have not been disputed. I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture for information as to who are the people who go down to the county councils and very often upset the figures of the local valuers? What reason is there for an official being sent down by the Board?
Why is it that the qualifications of that official should be considered better than those of the local valuer on the spot, who has no interest in the matter beyond ascertaining the actual value of the land? Why should he be overruled by a man who comes down from London, who knows nothing of the local circumstances, and who decides that a certain value is necessary for the land. The small holders have a definite grievance in this matter of a value being put upon the land, against the opinion of the local valuer and the community on the spot, by the valuer of the Board of Agriculture. Then the small holder has another grievance in the matter of compensation. I think the Committees and all who have to administer the Act will agree that the chief opponents of the measure are the large farmers rather than, the landlords. They have a deadly hatred to this Act. If it becomes necessary to turn some of these large farmers from the land to make way for small holders, I think it is essential and right that those farmers should receive adequate compensation. It is a real hardship in many cases to those farmers, and I think this House will agree with me when I say that the compensation ought not necessarily to be the actual minimum that could be found or agreed upon, but that a fairly reasonable compensation, and even more than that, should be given to the farmer to make up for the loss he has sustained. The great objection to this compensation is that it will fall on the small holder, and the small holder is quite ready as a rule to pay what is just and reasonable. But if he has to find, I do not say unreasonable compensation, but compensation above what the ordinary

303
valuer decided, it is not fair that the additional sum should fall on the small holder. One other question is that of the sinking fund. The hon. Member for Bridgwater interrupted my hon. Friend on the question of the powers conferred under the Act. I would ask him whether his interruption was the expression of a real regret that in his opinion it was not possible to put this sum on the rates? He will agree with me that it is a hardship that the tenant has to pay the sinking fund charges?
Mr. SANDERS: I quite agree that is a hardship.
Sir H. VERNEY: Then we agree in all parts of the House that it is not fair that the tenant should have to pay the sinking fund charges?
Mr. SANDERS: No; I said it was a hardship.
Sir H. VERNEY: Very well, a hardship that the tenant should have to pay the sinking fund. The argument on this side is that it should be put on the rates. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] An hon. Member on these benches quoted figures to show that the rate was one-fifth of a penny in one county and one-seventh of a penny in another, while in a third case it was the larger amount of one-fourth of a penny. Still, the amount is comparatively insignificant when we consider that the land in question becomes the property of the county council. The county councils being what they are, and these small holders being opposed to a large extent by farmers, it would be extremely difficult to persuade those bodies that they should pay the sinking fund out of the rates. I therefore venture very humbly and tentatively to suggest to the House why should the sinking fund be paid at all, why should anyone pay it, or, in other words, why should not the State undertake it? Why, instead of becoming a debt, should it not become an investment of the State on the best possible security—that is, the security of the land of England, which every year, as is shown by the anxiety of some hon. Members to sell their lands, becomes more and more valuable, and as shown by the interest of an equal number of people to buy the land? That land is probably as good security as could be found. Whether it is a possible financial problem as an amateur I have no idea, but I do suggest, whether it is possible to have a sinking
304
fund or not, that at least it is a reasonable suggestion that the State should undertake this responsibility. Whether they like to have a small sinking fund or not would be a question for the State and the House to decide, and as the hon. Member for Bridgwater and all hon. Members on the opposite side consider that it will be a hardship for the tenant to pay, they also would consider it would be a hardship that the rates and the county council should pay. Therefore we come to the only other solution that the State should pay.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think it would be a hardship on the tenant if he became the owner of the land.
Sir H. VERNEY: That I know is the view of hon. Members opposite, but what about the mortgages they would raise on the land and which would eventually ruin them? I would venture to suggest that the question of the State undertaking the sinking fund is not one that can lightly be put aside. That we have been able to bring before the President of the Board, whose activities and administration are welcomed by agricultural Members in all parts of the House, some of the grievances of the small holders, the thanks of the House is due to the hon. Member for Thornbury.
Mr. SANDERS: I desire to say a word in answer to the hon. Baronet as to this matter of a sinking fund. I do not think it is so much a question on whom the hardship rests, but I think the real thing that we have got to get at is as to the law on this point, namely, whether county councils are safe if they take the action, which two or three counties undoubtedly have taken, of bearing this charge—that is, of throwing it on the rates. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman not long ago whether he or his predecessors had been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that this charge if thrown on the rates was illegal. The right hon. Gentleman, as far as I remember, informed me that it was not usual to give the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. His predecessor had not the same scruple, and speaking in another place on the 26th March, 1908, on this very question, said:
"My Lords, I am asked in the first place whether the Board of Agriculture concur in the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown that where the county councils purchase small holdings for the purpose of their being let, the Act requires the rent to be fixed at such reasonable amount as will recoup the purchase money as well as the interest on the loan raised to provide it. The answer is in the affirmative. The Small Holdings Act of 1907 requires that the purchase money

305
must be recouped, and the interest as well, by way of sinking fund."
In the latter part of the same speech the Noble Lord said:—
"Some county councils in England objected to putting anything on the rates, and it was absolutely necessary in order to get the Bill through to give a distinct pledge that if a county council BO desired there should be no charge on the rates whatever."
10.0 P.M.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and especially to ask his Friends behind him, if they adhere to the pledge which Lord Carrington told us was distinctly given, and without which he said it would have been, impossible to get the Act through. If the charge is not put on the rates, and in face of that pledge I think it is clear that it cannot be put on the rates, unless the county council so desires it, where are we to put it? It must either be put on the small holder or on the State. If the hon. Gentleman is able to get on the soft side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and get him to pay this sinking fund out of public moneys, then, I think, all is said; but, according to the pledge given by Lord Carrington, it is clear that if He cannot get that concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer then there is no alternative that, hardship or no hardship, it must remain as a burden upon the shoulders of the small holders unless the county council is willing and anxious to bear it. It is a question whether the county council ought voluntarily to undertake that duty. With regard to the bare land, the hon. Baronet below the Gangway (Sir K. Baker) has already spoken on the subject, and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Verney) has also referred to it. As a member of a county council, I think it would be exceedingly difficult, even when the question is merely that of the bare land, to get the county council to undertake that burden without any result for eighty years, putting aside the question what are you going to do in the case of buildings where you have a much shorter sinking fund. The hon. Member for Norfolk spoke of the sinking fund in the case of buildings being for twenty years at £3 12s. Suppose the county council undertook that charge, then at the end of twenty years they would have paid the whole of the cost of the buildings, while, if the Board of Agriculture's contention is right, at the end of that time the tenant will have got the entire benefit, and the county council will have nothing to show for their expenditure. That, of course, is one of the things which makes this Act so expensive to the tenant.
306
I think that what has been said by hon. Members opposite as to the charges put upon the tenant being high is perfectly true; but why is it so? We have to put on charges for sinking fund, for management, and for repairs. All these charges are not put on at the will of the county councils. They are not put on because the county councils are unnaturally anxious to be on the safe side. Speaking from my own experience in the county of Somerset, when small holdings were first started we were anxious to charge a lower rate than we are charging now, but we were told by the Commissioners of the Board of Agriculture that we were not charging enough. The charges we have to-day were put on after consultation with and on the advice of the Commissioners of the Board of Agriculture. The Commissioners were perfectly right, because, in spite of these charges, of which so many Members opposite complain, it is the fact that in my own county we are not working at a profit. When we last worked out our accounts we found that, taking the sums that had been paid out and the sums we had received there was a net loss on the whole account of over £2,000. The fact is that this system of tenancy under an elective body, that elective body being controlled and often hampered by two and sometimes three Government Departments, is the most uneconomical form of tenancy ever invented. If you complain that the tenants are charged too much, the fault lies not with the county councils, but with the provisions of this particular Act and with the policy of those responsible for it. Another big question also included in this Motion is that of going behind the county councils and going in for indiscriminate compulsory purchase. If you are so fond of the democratic principle, why do you want to overrule these freely elected bodies—bodies elected on a much wider franchise than the House of Commons itself. We heard the other day of the inequality of the plural vote. The county councils are elected without the plural vote. County councils have a wider suffrage than the House of Commons, because among those who vote for them are not only men, but women. You wish to go behind these elected bodies. When one of these bodies says that it does not think on the whole that it would be wise to acquire land by compulsory purchase, you wish to say, "The elected body is wrong. We know much better, and we are going to take this land compulsorily, whether the elected body wishes it or not."

307
I am not an enemy of small holdings. Ever since the Act has been in force I have done everything in my power to promote the cause of small holdings. But I hold that there is room for both small holdings and large holdings at the same time. If you go in for indiscriminate compulsory purchase, without considering whether or not it is a grievance to the farmer, without considering whether you are doing great hardship to a man who may have been in a farm for many years, and whose family may have been there for hundreds of years, if you propose to turn a man out under these circumstances, undoubtedly you are causing hardship to that man. By doing that you do all you can to destroy what we have heard so much about tonight, and what it is said to be the object of so many hon. Members opposite to promote, namely, security of tenure. There is no greater danger to security of tenure than these proposals for turning men out compulsorily under the Small Holdings Act or any other Act of the same description. I believe that this Act can be worked smoothly, and it is very much better if it is worked smoothly; but it needs a little patience. It is very much better that men should wait a year or eighteen months longer and get land without friction than that they should get it immediately with the maximum of friction. If you want to make this Act a success, if you want to make small holders not only prosperous, but on good terms with their neighbours, you must work the Act with tact and by conciliatory methods, and not in the sledge-hammer manner that hon. Gentlemen opposite propose.
Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Those who are responsible for this Motion are not desirous of making an attack upon the Board of Agriculture. Their purpose is rather to stimulate activity in the administration of the Small Holdings Act. The Motion acknowledges the marked improvement that has recently taken place, undoubtedly largely attributable to the additional Commissioners who have been appointed. It is not my intention to make any attack on the Board, nor do I think that anybody can complain of the tone and temper of the speeches delivered from the other side of the House. With certain of the observations made by the hon. Member who spoke last, I find myself in hearty agreement. I certainly do not desire to
308
see a universal system of small holdings. I entirely agree with him that there should be, and is room in the country for both small and large holdings. Undoubtedly some forms of cultivation are best carried out on large holdings, while on the other hand there are other forms of cultivation, particularly where individual attention is requisite, that can be best carried out on small holdings. I wish to confine my observations mainly to a point which has already received attention from previous speakers, namely, the question of the sinking fund charges. It appears to be a matter of doubt whether the local councils may or may not bear the sinking fund charges themselves. The Noble Lord who previously presided over the Board of Agriculture, seemed to have laid it down in the House of Lords that the county councils had no power to undertake these charges, or, at any rate, that a solemn obligation had been entered into in that sense in order to facilitate the passage of the measure, which obligation constituted almost a legal disability.
The point is not a new one. My attention has been drawn to the fact that sixteen years ago the question was very widely canvassed in respect to the Allotments Act, 1887. In the year 1893 the Board of Agriculture issued a circular to local authorities laying down that rents need not, and in equity should not, be fixed so high as to cover the annual instalments of the repayment of the purchase money of the land. Therefore it seems to me that in recent years a most undesirable departure has been undertaken by the Board of Agriculture. As there is now universal agreement that hardship is entailed upon a small holder, I think this House does well to consider whether there is not a method that can be adopted to relieve the small holder of that acknowledged hardship without imposing any particular hardship upon any other section of the community.
It is asked what would the local councils receive in return for their undertaking this obligation. It appears to me that the ownership of land in perpetuity is a very good return for a small expenditure out of the rates. The very best investment that anybody could make is the land of our country. I am certainly convinced that the best investment a local council can make would be to acquire the land that surrounds it. County councils do find themselves in some difficulty. Let me read the concluding observations of

309
the 1893 Circular to which I have referred. It says:—
"It would be sufficient that the rate should cover, with a fair margin for eventualities, the interest of all expenditure, including the purchase money."
This appears to be an indication that the purchase money itself can be borne elsewhere. It certainly appears to me that it must have been contemplated in the circular that it should be borne on the local rates. I certainly felt when the 1907 Act was passed that this circular was indicative of the policy of the Board of Agriculture, and that the purchase charges, the annual repayment of the purchase money, would not be imposed on the small holder. In fact the Norfolk County Council, of which my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion, is a distinguished member, laboured under that impression. They approached the small holdings question with the 1893 circular in their mind. In course of time they had to direct the attention of the Board of Agriculture to the matter. They were then, in 1908, distinctly informed that it was not competent for them so to place the instalment of the purchase money on the rates, but that it must be included in the rent. Therefore, I feel that it is but due to the councils, as well as to small holders, that this matter should receive further consideration at the hands of this House. It will inevitably follow, if this policy is pursued, that these small holders will have to buy a number of estates which will be ultimately invested in the county councils.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member who seconded the Motion that this matter is of national importance. To open up the land of the country to better cultivation is not only calculated to bring advantage to the immediate district, but in the opinion of a considerable number of Members of this House, must also be of great social advantage. If that be so I think it is quite legitimate to advance the view that the State and the locality might really share this burden between them. Having secured a general admission that it is unjust to place the burden exclusively upon the small holder, it seems to me that we have to turn in the other direction, and to decide whether it shall be borne in one of three ways: either entirely on the local rates, entirely as a national charge, or whether equity does not demand that it should be divided between these two. For my part I feel that there is a great deal to be said, although in a speculative fashion. First of all, that it was one of those charges that might be thrown upon
310
the National Exchequer alone, but I am compelled to say that the immediate locality receives first benefit from the establishment of those conditions, that it undoubtedly secures a practical advantage in the increased rateable value, and therefore it may be said in equity that the burden should be divided in these two ways. But, at any rate, we have to protest against the small holder being compelled to continue bearing this obligation any longer. A fair rent for land is rent for the use of the land only, and if you are going to make it cover the cost of purchasing the land as well it becomes an unfair rent, against which everybody is bound to protest. I respectfully direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this point, because I believe if we can once find a solution of it we would give a great stimulus to the possibility of small holdings in the country. Another point of fundamental interest is the valuation of the land.
I do not intend to traverse the ground already so well covered, but I want to address this question to the representative of the Government. A public valuation of land is now taking place. I presume all parties will have to be satisfied that that valuation is being pursued upon a just and fair principle—at any rate, we have to presume that a national duty will be performed in an impartial and fair manner, and until evidence is adduced to prove the contrary I elect to hold the views I have expressed. There certainly ultimately will be statistics available for the Government, and I think we may consider whether these statistics that are now being compiled cannot be placed at the disposal of the local authorities in cases where they have to purchase land, and if an actual figure cannot be determined upon it will enable them to form a fair idea of the actual value of the land. I do not claim to be an agricultural expert, although I happened to be born of a family of agriculturists. Nevertheless, since the passing of this Act I have had something to do with various bodies concerned in its administration, and I know of numbers of instances where, as soon as a demand has been created for land an enormous inflation has taken place in the price, and small holders have either been deterred from proceeding with their applications or those who have been placed in occupation have had to pay a rent far higher than what justice would acknowledge. This question of the valuation of land is of primary importance. I respectfully draw the attention, of the

311
right hon. Gentleman to the 1893 Circular, and I feel the Board of Agriculture has made an undesirable departure when it contemplated that a sinking fund should be placed upon the resources of the small holder. I think that is an undesirable practice, and one that ought to be changed.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I think the House must feel that there is an air of unreality about the protest which is couched in the somewhat strong Resolution moved from the other side of the House. It is noteworthy that those who have addressed the House from the other side all represent counties, and in one case a county town in which admittedly the Act has been worked uncommonly well and with remarkably successful results. I have good reason for suggesting that there is an air of unreality about this campaign for speeding up, by the process known as "gingering," the working of the Act with a view to putting pressure upon the county councils. In the month of April last year the Report of the Small Holdings Commissioners was issued, and about that time, or immediately after, there commenced a restlessness on the part of what has been described this evening as the extreme left wing of the party opposite in favour of the appointment of new Commissioners to speed up the working of the Act. It is rather remarkable to note that the Report, published two months before the new Commissioners were appointed, wound up with the following words:—
"We have no hesitation in saying in conclusion that the provision of 9,000 small holdings through the instrumentality of the Act in three years is a result which reflects great credit on the various councils concerned. With very few exceptions they have lost no opportunity of providing for the needs of all suitable applicants, and we are satisfied that, in the great majority of counties, the work could not have been done more quickly without serious risk and disaster."
I, for one, am wholly in accordance with the principle of this Small Holdings Act, and I have done my best to forward the working of it in those counties with which I am associated, but I am more than ever convinced that the one way to wreck this Act and make it unworkable is to try and work its machinery faster than machinery can reasonably be worked. The conclusions of the Commissioners go on to say:—
"It is inevitable that some of the applicants should consider that there has been unreasonable delay, but that this is in most cases not the fault of the councils is shown by the fact that in those counties where the Act has been vigorously administered ever since it came into operation, such as Norfolk, Somerset and Cambridge, the unsatisfied demand from suitable applicants still remains a very large one, even after three years' hard work."
312
The Commissioners end up by saying:—
"If the small holdings movement is to be the permanent success for which we hope, it is essential that it should be carried out with the hearty co-operation of all classes connected with the land and with the minimum amount of friction and hardship."
The Commissioners point out in a previous chapter some of the reasons why they are anxious that undue pressure should not be put upon the councils, and why undue haste should not be shown in working out the provisions of the Act. They say:—
"The economic success of the small holdings movement depends almost entirely upon improved methods of education, more especially in the practical application of the results of scientific research, and upon organisation and co-operation. The small holders principally need expert advice in two directions, first, in the selection of the crops to grow and how best to grow them; second, in the methods of marketing their produce and stock to the best advantage."
One reason why I hope we are not going to try to travel too fast in this matter is that the Board of Agriculture has at last—I think somewhat late in the day—set aside large sums of money for all these purposes which the Small Holdings Commissioners say are essential for the successful working of the Small Holdings Act. The more progress that is made with co-operation and with practical instruction in agricultural processes, and in marketing, with the help also of credit associations, which are badly needed in our agricultural districts, the more chance there will be of creating—I was going to say a land hunger, but there is not a land hunger at the present time; I wish there were—at any rate, an appetite for land among agricultural labourers, and those are the persons whom you ought to consider first for small holdings if they are to be an economic success. Reference has been made by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution to the state of affairs in the county which he represents in this House. I live in that county, and I should like myself to testify to the very great success that has been achieved in the county of Gloucester owing to the great judgment of Sir Ashton Lister, who is not merely a distinguished Radical, but a practical expert in the matter of small holdings, owing to the fact that he, as chairman of the small holdings committee of that county, has urged his colleagues and the council to, as he puts it, "hasten slowly in this matter." That is valuable testimony from a man who admittedly has made a great success, so far, of the working of the Act in the West of England. We have been told quite truly by the hon.

313
Baronet the Member for North Bucks (Sir H. Verney), for whose opinions in these matters I have considerable regard, that, in spite of what may have been said by way of prejudice in the past, it is not the landowners who have stood in the way mainly of the working of this Act; it is naturally and necessarily the larger farmer.
Sir H. VERNEY: I did not say that.
Mr. C. BATHURST: Then I should like to know what the hon. Baronet did say.
Sir H. VERNEY: I said the farmers principally were the persons who complained of the Act. The landlords do as much as they can in many cases, but not so much as the farmers.
Mr. C. BATHURST: The hon. Baronet has, I think, a little whittled down the statement which he made to the House, and I, for one, am not going to join him in abusing the honourable class to which he belongs. At any rate, I think it is common knowledge that the great difficulty has been, and necessarily been, with the larger farmers. It stands to reason, if you are going to take a small slice of the best land out of a large farm, which cannot be economically and commercially worked unless it is maintained as an agricultural entity, as it has existed for many years past and which has been worked upon, certain principles because it is such an entity, it must necessarily cause a certain amount of reluctance if not of resentment, on the part of the farmer whose land it is proposed so to take. I do strongly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman and the House the advisability of not tackling this problem in piecemeal fashion. Why not endeavour to take the whole of farms, if they happen to be suitable, when they are in the market, and not carve out of those farms, one small holding but a colony of small holdings. He member a colony of small holdings possesses many advantages which a single small holding does not. They are able, as has already been shown in Cheshire, to form their own co-operative society, and to join in the purchase of the raw materials of their industry, and also for the sale and distribution of their produce. I am quite sure that this friction might be very largely avoided if only that policy were put forward as a desirable policy for the Board and for the county councils to adopt, and if they did adopt it we
314
should hear very little grumbling on the part of landowners or farmers in the future. There is one point the hon. Member for Thornbury put forward with which I agree. He suggested it was unfair that the charge for local taxation should be not merely on the annual value as shown by the bare rent paid for the holding, but that it should be on the supposed annual value shown by the aggregation of that rent with the cost of management and sinking fund, which is no part of the rent. I feel that that is a strong point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take note of it.
As regards this sinking fund, are we not entitled to ask the Government what they meant by the word "expenses" when, in 1907, they passed Section 7 of the Act? Did they, or did they not, mean when they submitted that particular Clause to this House that the charge for the sinking fund should be included in "expenses," and should be added to the small holder's rent, or did they intend it should be borne by the ratepayers? They must have had some idea in their minds when they laid this Clause before the House. But even assuming that they had no idea, it is really unfair to tell county councils as the Local Government Board is telling them, that certain county councils have, without being surcharged, decided to throw this burden on the ratepayers and take it off the shoulders of the small holder. The right hon. Gentleman must know, and the House knows, that if at any time this matter is brought before the Courts and there is a judicial decision in favour of the view held at any rate at one time by the Law Officers of the Crown, after the date of that decision every single county council which had thrown the charge on the ratepayers would be surcharged for so doing. Surely then it is the duty of the Government to get county councils out of the muddle into which they are rapidly drifting to their serious disadvantage. When the hon. Baronet the Member for North Bucks suggests that the State could find the money, we know it may be a very convenient way of getting over rating difficulties. But those who are responsible for local administration must also to some extent be responsible for finding the money which they administer, or the result is bound to be extravagance. I sympathise most heartily with the present position of the small holder, but I cannot help thinking that the ratepayer will have some reasonable

315
grievance if you are going to throw the burden on him, especially in cases where pressure has been put by Government Departments on county councils to force them to take steps which they would not otherwise have taken, and bearing in mind that the purchase of land at a time when it was admittedly at a higher value than a few years ago, may turn out to be a bad bargain for the ratepayers.
May I ask the right hon Gentleman who has now passed into control, not merely of the agricultural affairs of this country, but also of the control of Crown woodlands, to try and do something to make it possible for those put on agricultural land to find additional employment during the winter months by working at woodland work which is found to be the only economic way of carrying out a system such as this in most other countries. I am sure the advice he will get from the Forest of Dean will be to the effect that small holdings can only be worked economically in that district if worked in conjunction with the woodland industry, and that it is extremely difficult for agricultural labourers to work them at a profit without) such a combination of employment.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The discussion which we have had to-night has been different from previous discussions on the administration of the Small Holdings Act by reason of one fact, namely, that no single speaker on the other side of the House has thought it worth his while to condemn small holdings either in part or as a whole. It now appears to be accepted in every quarter of the House as a dictum with which no one will disagree that small holdings are an essential part of our agricultural economy, and that, having come and having been well established, they are bound to stay. That is a great advance upon the position occupied by those who attacked small holdings, not only at the time that the measure was passing through this House, but afterwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Yes, I can well remember the attitude taken up both in this House and outside by many Gentlemen who believed that the reversion to smaller holdings was a retrograde move. [HON. MEMBER: "NO, no."] I accept the view of the hon. Member opposite that he never held that opinion.
Mr. G. D. FABER: I was on the Committee upstairs, and I never took up that attitude.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member can speak for himself.
Mr. FABER: I can speak for the line adopted by the Committee.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very glad to hear that for his part he is a believer in small holdings. Let us accept that as common ground all over the House. The only question which has been under discussion here to-night is how the small holding system can be established on a sound basis, and how it can be rapidly extended. The Mover of the Resolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Rendall) gave us two or three cases where something had been done, and where he hoped more might be done. I will deal first with the case of Bristol, which he knows well. In Bristol they found they could not obtain land sufficient for their applicants within their borders, and they had to make a provisional arrangement to lease a farm at Seamills, and that proposal was only abandoned because the Board refused to sanction the proposal. The reason why the Board refused to sanction the proposal was because, first of all, upon inquiry it was found that of the applicants very few of them had any capital, or they had not the necessary capabilities to ensure their success, and that very few of them had any agricultural experience to speak of. It seemed clear that a scheme of that nature was bound to break down, and I think Bristol was well advised in taking the advice of the Board and not pressing the scheme. The other case mentioned by my hon. Friend applied to eight or nine applicants, who applied for amounts of land varying from five to thirty acres. They refused to go to land which was more than one mile away, and for that reason it was impossible to supply them with the land which they required. I think that disposes of the two cases which were raised with regard to the city of Bristol, but what I should like to add for Bristol as a whole is that they have shown themselves well disposed towards the movement, and they have already within their boundaries 200 acres distributed among no less than 2,000 allotment holders.
I come next to the case of London, a case which is more interesting. It is a curious fact about London that there have been only something like twenty-three or twenty-four applicants, and these applicants are all men who wish to continue their work in London. If they wish to

317
continue their work in London it is quite clear that they cannot be planted in the country. I do not know what would have been the view of the County Council of London if these men had wished to go out into the country and the request had been made to them that a colony should be started in another area. But certainly in this case it would have been mistaken policy on our part to have pressed the London County Council to embark on a scheme in Essex for these applicants. We knew "what the views of the applicants were, because a large deputation of the London applicants waited on my predecessor to discuss the question with him. With regard to the Winterbourne scheme in Dorset, I inquired into it both in London and on the spot. I saw representatives of the county council, and I saw those who occupied the holdings, and the conclusion I came to was that it was one of the worst worked schemes I have ever come across.
Sir RANDOLF BAKER: Was it a fact that that scheme was carried out with the approval of the Commissioners the whole way through, and with the approval of the Board from start to finish? They approved every step of the scheme.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is, not correct to say they approved every step in the scheme, for there are many steps in every scheme which can be carried without the approval of the Commissioners. Instead of employing a man who knew something about the designing of small holdings and the proper equipment and alteration of cottages, they employed a surveyor, who was not a specialist at that work, and he made many mistakes in design. Unfortunately, in the middle of the alteration, he himself died, and the contractor was allowed to do pretty well as he pleased, and the result was that the expenditure on these holdings was amazingly large, and there is precious little to be seen for it Another great mistake was that when they did spend money they spent it recklessly. I need only mention one instance. The boundary fences between the various holdings on many parts of the estate are not creosoted timber, but are actually park railings.
Sir R. BAKER: This is a point to which I drew attention nearly two years ago. We were then attempting to put up creosoted timber fencing, but we could not get
318
a sufficient term from the Local Government Board to allow us to do that efficiently, and, as we thought, cheaply, because we should have had to replace it in seven years.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Baronet says that park fencing, according to his estimate, to last from forty to fifty years, was a better bargain for the small holders. Everyone knows it was not. They are bound to pay a sinking fund for a short period even on the park railings. When I went down there I found the whole scheme was likely to tumble to the ground unless some attempt was made by the county council to put it on a proper basis. I am glad to say the county council themselves have undertaken to carry out every recommendation which I made to them, and have, of course, involved themselves in very large expenditure. I think the hon. Baronet had best have left the Winterbourne scheme alone. Certainly it is not a scheme of which he or the county council need be proud. I hope the experience they have had will prevent them from making a similar blunder in the future. My hon. Friend referred in particular to valuations. The valuations in the case of compulsory purchase are, of course, the valuations arrived at by valuers appointed by the Board of Agriculture. I think it is very easy to overestimate the natural tendency of those valuers to put high prices on the land they value. I can give the House some particulars of values which have come under my notice in two cases—one of purchase and one of hiring. A larger amount was awarded than was asked by the owner only in two cases. In ten cases smaller amounts were awarded than was offered by the county councils themselves. We cannot say therefore that these valuers were behaving unjustly. These valuers did, as nearly all valuers do—they split the difference. Out of 122 cases the county councils have exercised the power of withdrawal in 33 cases only. It may be necessary that we should give some guidance to the valuers, but I think it would be a departure from custom to tell the valuers beforehand how they were to value, except with some general advice an instruction could be given. Advice has been given to this extent: They were told that they should take into consideration the rent at which the land had previously been let, and they were told also of the great importance of taking into consideration the value at which it is assessed for Income Tax or rating. I venture to say

319
that both of those suggestions were wise, and were not likely to act unfairly against anybody.
My hon. Friend suggested that the amount of charges for management are too heavy. As to management expense, it does not appear to be an exceptional amount. I think 5 per cent. is not excessive. As the number of small holdings increases that will be a decreasing amount. At present it barely pays, and in some cases it does not pay the salary of the county land agent. And there is an allowance of 2½ per cent. for contingencies, and 2½ per cent. for insurance, and where there are buildings of 7½ to 10 per cent. for repairs. It is scarcely a fair description of these charges to class them all as management charges. I think, on the whole, it may be said that 20 per cent. allowed over a period of years is not too large, and it is for that reason that that percentage has been sanctioned by the Board of Agriculture in the past. My hon. Friend suggested that we ought to pay something towards the management expenses. We do pay some contribution. We are actually now making a contribution through the small holdings account, which is equivalent to a shilling per acre per annum. I cannot hold out any hope of the management expense being reduced.
I now come to the contentious subject of sinking fund charges. It has been suggested on the other side of the House that if these sinking fund charges are not paid by the small holders, the small holders would be spoon fed, and that if they are paid by the ratepayers there will be a charge thrown on the ratepayers, and that all other classes of the community will pay for the benefit of one class. I think those who make these criticisms of the present system as to charging the sinking fund overlook the fact that the land is county council land, and there is every justification for the county itself, all the ratepayers, including the small holders, paying their quota towards the sinking fund.
Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it yet determined whether it is in the power of the county councils under the Act not to charge the sinking fund to small holders?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is said that county councils who put the charge for the sinking fund on the rates will lay themselves open to surcharge. Are they likely to do that? The West Riding have all along
320
paid the sinking fund contribution out of the rates and have never been surcharged. The same has been done by two Welsh counties. I know that when my Noble Friend was discussing the subject in the House of Lords, he said it was not the intention of the Government to compel the county councils to put these charges on the rates. It was not the intention of the Government to compel the county councils to put them on the small holders. I believe there is nothing in the Act which compels the county councils to lay these charges on the small holders. The Noble Lord has asked me pointedly if county councils who put the charge on the rates lay themselves open to surcharge. I believe that they do not, and I express that opinion as the responsible head of the Board of Agriculture. I know there have been varying legal opinions about it, but I have taken the best advice at my disposal, and the opinion I express now I am prepared to communicate to the county councils if necessary. In our opinion we do not believe that the county councils would lay themselves open to surcharge if they put the sinking fund on the ratepayers.
There are three divisions of the sinking fund—a sinking fund on land, one on buildings, and one on the cost of adaptation. The amount on land is a very small amount, and I cannot understand why any county council should shrink from it. As regards buildings, those who have the benefit of the buildings ought to pay for the exhaustion of the buildings. I hope that, having admitted that the county councils will take the advice which I now offer, in the near future that the sinking fund on the land of small holdings should be put on the rates and charged to the whole county. One point was raised by my hon. Friend with regard to additional rates. I have every sympathy with the small holder in the complaint which is made. He complains that when a farm is cut up into small holdings the rates are pushed up very high, and there are some cases where they have been quadrupled. That strikes at the very root of our assessment basis. I cannot attempt to alter the assessment basis; that can only be done by an Act of Parliament. It is unfair to the small holder, and if there ever was a good case for legislation to safeguard the small holder against over-assessment, it is this. In the county of Hertfordshire action has been taken in this matter and instructions have been given to appeal against the assessment on behalf of the tenant.

321
The gentleman in charge of the matter has had the good sense to inform the Assessment Committee that if the assessments are not reduced on small holdings he will appeal against the assessments of the large farmers with the object of having them raised. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it is only by the spread of co-operation, co-operative sale, co-operative purchase, and credit banks, and by educating the small holders in intensive culture and allowing them to have a fair chance of existence in competition with large holders as well as with men of their own class, that there is any hope of the small holdings movement being a really prosperous movement.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood Adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).
ADJOURNMENT.—Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. F. E. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman, before the House adjourns, inform the House whether he is in a position to state what steps the Government propose to take in order to fill up the regrettable vacancy in the Whip's room?
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly, at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.