Lords Sitting of 13 March 1902

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND TRAM-WAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
DEAL AND WALMER GAS BILL [H.L.],
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  HAMILTON GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.],
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received tomorrow.
  ABERCARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTONTRA M-WAYS BILL [H.L.],

    HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    EXETER AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    SOUTH SHIELDS, SUNDERLAND, AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
    CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL,
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
    Examiner's certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising—
  I. The construction of—

  1. Light railways in the city of Worcester and in the rural districts of Pershore and Upton-on-Severn, in the county of Worcester.

  2. Light railways in the boroughs of Jarrow and South Shields, in the county of Durham.

  3. A light railway in the county of Sussex between Northiam and Rye.

  4. Light railways in the parishes of Edgware, Finchley, Friern-Barnet, Hendon, Hornsey, Kingsbury, Little Stanmore Southgate, Tottenham, Wembley, Willesden, and Wood Green, in the county of Middlesex.

  5. Light railways in the county of Stafford, in the boroughs of Stoke - upon - Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Longton, and Hanley.

  6. A light railway in the parish of Clifton, in the rural district of Barton-upon-Irwell, in the county palatine of Lancaster.

  7. A light railway in the urban districts of Pemberton and Ashton-in-Makerfield, in the county palatine of Lancaster.

  8. A light railway in the county of Southampton, from Lyndhurst to Lyndhurst Road.

  9. Light railways in the city of Worcester and the rural districts of Martley and Upton-on-Severn, in the county of Worcester.

  10. Light railways in the urban and rural districts of Dartford, in the county of Kent.

  1207

  11. Light railways in the county of Suffolk, from Lowestoft to Kessingland.

  12. Light railways in the county of Stafford, in the parishes of Wednesfield and Short Heath, and the abandonment of certain light railways authorised by the Essington and Ashmore Light Railway Order, 1900.

  13. Light railways in the counties of Southampton and Surrey, from Aldershot to Farnborough.

  14. Light railways in the county of Leicester, from Loughborough to Mountsorrel, and in the borough of Loughborough.

  II. The deviation of a light railway authorised by the Middleton Light Railways Order, 1898, and for other purposes.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of Jesus College, Oxford, on 6th December, 1901, amending Statute V. of the Statutes of the College and the schedule relating King Charles the First's Trust: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 29.)
PETITIONS.
  TEMPERANCE.
  Petition in favour of further legislation respecting; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to county courts in Ireland was presented by the Lord Ashbourne; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No 30.)

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1—
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved the omission of Clause 1, which provided that Part II of the Sixth Schedule of the Act of 1901 should be amended by including in the list of factories and workshops,
1208
laundries carried on by way of trade or for the purpose of gain. He presumed that the intention of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was to make steam laundries factories, and all other laundries workshops. If that was his intention, the clause failed to carry it into effect, because the existing law in the Factory Act of 1901 only made an industrial establishment a factory when steam, water or other mechanical power was used in it for manufacturing processes. Laundry processes were not manufacturing processes. The result of the clause would be that all laundries, steam and otherwise, would be workshops. He objected entirely to the application in this way en bloc of the factory legislation to laundries. The Factory Acts were devised, in the first instance, for the great textile factories, and there had been included non-textile factories and workshops, but some manufacturing process was carried on in them. Manufacturing processes were capable of being carried on at any hour, continuously, and with perfect regularity. The consequence was that in a factory it was possible to have fixed hours for work and meals, in fact, perfect regularity. That was not possible in the case of an industry which was not a manufacturing industry.
There were four classes of industry, to which certain portions of the Factory Act had been applied, namely, docks, buildings, railways and laundries. In each of those cases Parliament had declined to apply the Factory Act as a whole, but had picked out certain provisions appropriate to the industry in question, and made those, and those only, applicable. In the case of laundries the application was more extensive. It was clear from the Bill that the clauses which the noble Earl wished to apply were those which regulated the hours of employment and the time for meals and holidays, which were precisely the clauses not suitable to laundries. The operation of this industry was not regular, like that of manufactures, but intermittent, varying greatly at different parts of the week. For these reasons it was thought right, in the Act of 1901, to leave considerable elasticity in the arrangements under which laundry work was allowed to be carried on. The laundry clause of the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901 was simply a reproduction of the clause in the Laundry Act of 1895. The latter clause

1209
was referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, which was strengthened by the addition of many Members. Mr. Asquith, the then Home Secretary, was added to the Committee, which also included the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and two other Members of the present Government. All these right hon. Gentlemen voted in favour of the hours which the present law prescribed for the laundry business, as against the hours prescribed in the Factory Act. Under the noble Earl's Bill laundries could only work for twelve hours—from six, seven, eight or nine o'clock in the morning to the corresponding hour in the evening. Out of that, one and half hours were taken for meals, whereas in the Act of 1901 the utmost latitude was allowed. Fourteen hours of work might be done at any period of the day and night, and the hours for meals were not fixed. All that was said was that there must be half-an-hour allowed for meals after every spell of five hours work. A maximum of sixty hours in the week for women was fixed in the existing Act, with the result that the whole of the work could be thrown on four days in the week. This was settled by the particularly strong Committee of 1895, after most elaborate discussion, and after receiving information from all parts of the country as to what would be most convenient for the laundry trade. Overtime was a small matter. The law, as fixed in 1901, allowed two hours overtime, whereas the Bill now before the House would only allow one hour. The Congress of Laundry Associations, held at Manchester on March 4th, adopted a resolution declaring that the interval of five hours between meals was much more convenient to the trade than the four and a half hours proposed in the Bill. It seemed to him that these changes, after so short an interval, were most vexatious.
With regard to convent laundries, in which he was very much interested, the Bill would entail inspection by three separate sets of inspectors. An inspector of nuisances under the local authority would enter to ascertain whether the sanitary arrangements were perfect; there would be a Home Office inspector to see that everything was done to prevent accidents; and, in London, the County Council would send an inspector to see that the
1210
means of escape in case of fire were adequate. How was the discipline of a home for the rescue of young women from evil habits to be maintained in such circumstances? He agreed that it was desirable that there should be some sort of security that these institutions did not take liberties which were not allowed to commercial laundries, but he thought this could be done in a better way than by putting them under the Factory Act, as proposed. Only a short time ago the Home Office issued a circular to these institutions, in which they were invited to say whether they would submit themselves voluntarily to Government inspection. The great majority of the institutions in London would, he had reason to know, assent to this inspection. It would be unfair and unreasonable, before sufficient time had been given for the answers to this circular to be received, and before the experiment of the Home Office had been tried, to allow a Bill to pass which handed over the institutions to the various inspecting bodies he had named. The numerous small cottage laundries, in which less than two outside persons were employed, would be likely to be killed by the Bill. No doubt the Bill would protect women in these small laundries from excessive hours; it would also have the effect of closing these laundries altogether, and of the two evils he thought it would be better that they should work long hours than have no work at all. He had very little sympathy with trade rivalry which masqueraded under the guise of philanthropy in this way. The larger laundries were trying to kill the smaller laundries. He had looked through the reports of the factory inspectors and could not find in any of them suggestions in the direction of this Bill. In fact, they said the operatives were highly satisfied with the Act, and he hoped their Lordships would not tamper with an industry of this sort without an inquiry. The Congress of Laundries Associations, at its meeting at Manchester, passed a number of resolutions, one of which urged the Home Secretary to appoint a Commission to inquire into the laundry trade and ascertain if any changes in the law were necessary. Another resolution condemned the proposed four and a half hours shift and suggested a five hours shift. He thought it would be undesirable to deal in this hasty

1211
way with a trade which specially interested the poorer classes in the community.
Moved, to leave out Clause 1.—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid he thought the speech of the noble Viscount was one which they might have expected rather at the Second Reading than at the Committee stage of the Bill, because he understood that this Amendment was nothing less than a Motion for the rejection of the whole measure. As the Second Reading was accepted without a division he was sure their Lordships would hardly reject the Bill now. The noble Viscount had argued from the intermittent character of the work in a laundry that it was unsuited to be treated as a factory, but the Bill provided for special hours, such as were allowed in only three other industries included in the Factory Act, and he considered that these would give sufficient flexibility to enable laundries to carry on their work without difficulty. The noble Viscount had told the House that the Act of 1895, which constituted the law on this subject at the present moment, received the assent of the Standing Committee on Trade and of a number of other high authorities. He believed that was the case, but reminded the House that the Clause in this Bill, which had been taken out of the Government Bill of last year, also received the unanimous support of the Grand Committee on Trade and of other high authorities in factory legislation. That fact showed that the intervening years had proved that the laundry industry had changed, and that its condition called for stricter legislation. As to the inspection of convent laundries, that would deal only with the laundry, and would not interfere with the institution itself. The noble Viscount had informed the House that he was unable to find anything in the reports of the factory inspectors for the years 1895 to 1900 which recommended a change in the direction of this Bill. He (Lord Lytton) had found a very large number of instances in which changes precisely such as were proposed in the Bill were recommended in the Factory Reports, and he had already given quotations in moving the Second Reading. There were no less than six pages devoted to this subject, and to a
1212
complaint of the existing legislation, in the Factory Report for the year 1901, and over and over again the factory inspectors had pointed out that the existing law was altogether unsatisfactory. The clauses in the Bill had already been brought forward by the Government last year. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERdwelt on the fact that the Bill, with the exception of one clause, had virtually been accepted by the Government last year. The fact that in 1895 the Grand Committee on Trade, with so many important persons upon it, accepted what was then thought to be a desirable measure, and five years afterwards decided to change it, seemed to him to be the strongest possible argument in favour of the present Bill. On that Bench they admitted that a certain amount of inconvenience would be caused to those in charge of the institutions by the visits of the inspectors, but they were perfectly prepared to put up with that inconvenience on the ground of the larger interests involved. It must be remembered, too, that the visits of inspectors of sanitation and so forth were already allowed; and he had not heard of any difficulty having arisen in consequence. He ventured to hope that the House, having accepted the principle of the Bill, would reject the Amendment.
LORD BELPERthought it was hardly necessary to say, after the Government had assented to the Second Reading of the Bill, that they would not support an Amendment such as this, which was directed to the principle of the Bill. If the present Amendment and the others which the noble Viscount had put down were carried, there would practically be nothing left of the Bill. He had already stated that there were some provisions which the Government were not prepared to accept in the exact form in the Bill. An inquiry was now going on which the Home Secretary had good reason to suppose would lead to satisfactory results, and under those circumstances the Government were not prepared at the moment to move detailed Amendments, but if the Bill made progress it would be competent to the Home Secretary to move in another place whatever Amendments he might think necessary.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHwas glad the noble Lord had so clearly stated the intention of the Government to resist the Amendment. If there was one trade to which the Factory Act should be applied more than another, it was to the laundry trade. He did not think that because a laundry was under religious or charitable management, or was promoted for religious or charitable purposes, it should escape inspection. Indeed, history went to show that it was exactly in these institutions that it was desirable there should be the publicity sought in order to secure the institutions dealt with from suggestions of abuse, as such institutions were very likely to have these suggestions made against them. The question as to the arrangement of hours was a very proper one for Committee, and he was quite sure that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would be glad to consider any re-adjustment of hours which was thought desirable. He hoped the House would support the Government in rejecting this Amendment.
LORD STANMOREhoped, before the Question was put, that someone in authority would give the House a legal definition of what was a laundry. It appeared to him that if this Bill passed into law in its present form any old woman in a village who washed a pair of stockings and received threepence would come under its ban. If the noble Earl would agree to exempt from the operation of the Bill any place where washing was carried on only by the members of one family, or by the members of the same family and one assistant, he would cordially support the rest of the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTONpointed out that by Clause 111 of the present Act "domestic laundries"—laundries in which only members of the same family were employed—were already exempted. If this Bill passed, those laundries would still be exempted.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: But where a single agent is employed they fall under the Factory Act.
The EARL OF LYTTON: Yes.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that after the decision of the House with regard to his first Amendment, it was not his intention to move the other Amendments standing in his name.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

BISHOPRIC OF SOUTHWARK BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

LONDON WATER BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, it will probably be in your Lordships' recollection that there was an announcement in the Speech from the Throne that a Bill would be submitted to Parliament for the better control of the water supply of London. In pursuance of that announcement, a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the President of the Local Government Board, and upon its being read a second time, a Motion was carried to the effect that it was expedient that the Bill should be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. In order to carry out that Resolution, it will be necessary that this House should concur in it, and should appoint a Committee to act jointly with the Committee of the other House. Those who are the guardians of the procedure of your Lordships' House feel that' in order to give effect to the Resolution of the House of Commons, if your Lordships think right to concur in it, it is necessary to introduce a measure identical with that which has been read a second time in another place. If that were not done, it is felt that there would be nothing to refer, and that noble Lords, acting on the Joint Committee, without this Bill being before your Lordships' House, would be acting only as assessors. The first thing you have to consider is whether there should be joint action. The Government

1215
recommend that this would be a wise course to take. It is felt that, in the circumstances of the case, one inquiry is better than two. The inquiry must be one of great length, and must involve very great expense, and as some of the parties interested in the matter will, in the conduct of their case before the Committee, be spending the money of the ratepayers, it is felt that such expenditure should not be repeated by the holding of a second identical inquiry. This is a public Bill introduced by the Government, and, of course, under such circumstances you do not have a reference to a Select Committee, as in the case of private Bills. At the same time, you are dealing with private property, and therefore it is necessary, from that aspect of the Bill, that there should be an inquiry, the same as if the Bill had been introduced as a private Bill.
The procedure by Joint Committee seems to be not only advisable, but necessary. That being so, it is held that in order to give this House, as it were, the right position in the Joint Committee, the Bill should be introduced into your Lordships' House. The Bill has been introduced, and is identical with that read a second time in the House of Commons. But it is not intended to proceed with the Bill except so far as the purpose of its going before the Joint Committee necessitates its being proceeded with. The Bill of the House of Commons, after the inquiry by the Joint Committee, will be returned to that House, and, having been considered, will be sent to your Lordships' House to be proceeded with as though the Bill I now ask should be read a second time had never been introduced. The position and the rights of your Lordships, therefore, will not be in any way affected by what is now taking place. The Bill will be read a first time, a second time, and proceeded with in the usual way, the whole object of this procedure today being to avoid two inquiries. I have communicated with my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, as representing the interests of the London County Council, and as having fully considered the Water question, and I trust there will be no opposition to the course proposed today, which is taken in the interests of those who will bear the
1216
burden of this inquiry—namely, the ratepayers—and is not a course taken in any political interest on the part of the Government. There are those who are very much interested in the proceedings before the Committee, and who will petition in order to be heard. I am desired by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees to state that parties wishing to be heard will not require to present two petitions, and that one petition to be heard will give every party petitioning a locus standi to place their views before the Committee. I think only one set of Gentlemen will be disappointed with the proposal I am now making, namely, the members of my own profession, the Bar. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord James of Hereford.)
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am sorry my noble friend Lord Spencer is not here today, but he and I have talked this matter over, and I think I am able to convey to your Lordships what his views, as well as my own, are on this subject. The procedure is undoubtedly somewhat unusual. I do not pretend to be an authority on the practice of this House, but it does seem to me that the procedure is unnecessary. I believe that this House has a perfect power at any time to join a Committee of the other House for any purpose whatever, without the preliminary introduction of a Bill, as in the present case. I think there is a good precedent for that—not, it is true, in respect of public Bills, but in respect of private Bills. We have had two instances in recent years — the Dublin Corporation Bill, which originated in the other House, and the Amalgamated Railways Bill in 1890, which originated in this House—in which a Joint Committee of the two-Houses was appointed without the Bill being read a second time in the House in which it did not originate. So that, as far as private Bills are concerned, there is a precedent for joining in a Joint Committee without the necessity of reading the Bill a second time. If the authorities of the House have decided that it is desirable that the procedure suggested by the noble and learned Lord should be followed, we are

1217
ready to agree with it, with the caveat that we do not think it is a course which is absolutely necessary.
My Lords, I should like to say one word with regard to the Committee itself. I do not know what is to be the procedure in appointing this Committee. As I understand, the Members of the other House are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and not through the "usual channels," and I hope I may take that as an indication that the Committee is to be an entirely impartial Committee, and not in any sense made up of partisan representatives. I think that for the purposes of this Committee the precedent of an ordinary Private Bill Committee should be followed, and that it should be composed of impartial Members acquainted with the subject, who will deal with it in an impartial spirit, doing full justice to all the interests concerned. What will be the points which the Committee will have to consider? First, the principle and constitution of the new Water Authority; and, secondly, the question as to what the powers of that Authority are to be, and especially whether it is to have the power, directly it is appointed, and before it has obtained knowledge and experience, of coming to an agreement by settlements with the Water Companies. That will be a point they will have to consider very carefully. It is provided that the question between the Authorities and the Water Companies should be settled by arbitration. I think there might be a little addition made on the financial side of the Arbitration Court, but that will be another point the Joint Committee will have to consider. Then there will be the question of the instructions to the arbitrators, and I hope the instructions will be as wide as possible, and that they will be allowed to go fully into all the circumstances of this question, which really should be kept clear of any political Party complexion. This is essentially a question which affects the health, the comfort, and the pockets of the inhabitants of London, and it should be considered free from all political Party bias, for really no questions are involved before the Committee which should lend themselves to treatment in that fashion. I assume that I have the assurance of the noble and learned Lord that the Committee
1218
will be appointed on the lines I suggest; that the reference to that Committee will be as wide as possible; that by assenting to the Motion this House is in no way whatever damnified with regard to its future proceedings on the Bill; that this Bill is brought forward pro formâ to satisfy the forms of the House; that when the Bill introduced in the House of Commons has been read a third time, it will come up to this House in the ordinary way; and that, with regard to the remaining stages of the Bill in this House, we shall have as complete power of dealing with this measure as with any other Bill coming from in the House of Commons. With that assurance, I assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I wish to say one word on the question of procedure, especially with regard to the procedure adopted in the case of the Irish Acts referred to. A private Bill is quite different from a public Bill, inasmuch as a Second Reading of a private Bill does not necessarily carry the adoption of the principle of the Bill with it. The noble Lord behind me consulted me at the beginning of the session as to whether this Bill could be referred to a Joint Committee without having been read a second time in this House. That seemed to me impossible, because it would be referring a Bill to a Committee, whereas the House had had no opportunity, up to that time, of expressing any view on the principle of it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agreed with me that the only way in which this could be done would be to introduce what would be a transitory Bill into this House and then drop it and wait for the Bill brought into the other House to come up to your Lordships in the usual way. I have troubled your Lordships with these few remarks in order to make it clear why this novel procedure is necessary.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: It is rather awkward that we should be twice over asked to accept the principle of the Bill. The whole question of the principle of the measure can be raised when it comes up from the House of Commons, so that our assent today is rather worthless.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, if I might make the observation without impertinence on the speech of the noble Lord, I think that he did what he censures us for doing, and that was, made some very unnecessary protestations. He dwelt very much on the absolute necessity of guarding ourselves from any Party feeling in this matter. I confess, being an old Parliamentary hand, that I always hear with some suspicion when any person guards himself from the imputation of any political feeling. I assure the noble Lord that it is unnecessary, and I rather resent the imputation which, by what he said, he conveyed upon the ordinary Committees of this House, as though it was a very special and unusual privilege that we should approach any of the subjects committed to our consideration without strong Party feeling. I believe there is no justification for any such imputation on the Committees of the House, whether direct or implied; and I entirely repudiate the idea that we have made this arrangement in order specially to avoid the imputation of party bias. There were a great number of other protestations made by the noble Lord which I do not think were just to the ordinary procedure of this House. Of course, there will be entire freedom from any Party bias, entire freedom from leaning to one side or the other; but that will take place, not because we have adopted a special form of procedure in order to carry it out, but because it is the universal rule of all Committees, especially Private Bill Committees, in this House. I most heartily join with the noble Lord in not only wishing, but confidently trusting, that that will be the result, and I hope that nothing he has said will induce outside observers or critics of this House to say that it required his special and earnest and most enthusiastic interference in order to preserve the House of Lords from such a snare. We are in no danger of it. I hope that, whatever the interests at issue may be, we shall consider them quite impartially, with a solitary and single view to the interests of the public.
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill will forgive me for pressing him on a
1220
small point. I understood the noble Lord to say that the Bill is being read a second time pro formâ, and will then be dropped, and that in the ordinary course the Bill will come up from the House of Commons and be read a first time, a second time, and "so on," It is rather as to the "so on" that I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord would give me more information. Is it intended that the Bill should not be referred to a Select Committee, and should not go through any Committee stage in this House?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: This reference to a Joint Committee will take the place of a Committee of the Whole House. When the Bill from the House of Commons has been read a second time in this House, I presume the House will not sit in Committee on the Bill.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Surely we are not to be deprived of the stage of Committee of the Whole House! It will be in the power of the Government to decide whether the Bill should go to the Standing Committee, but surely they have no power to omit the Committee stage.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would venture to remind the noble and learned Lord of what he said with regard to the procedure of this Bill in the course of his statement today. He stated that the privileges and rights of this House would be in no way interfered with, and he pointed out that, if we assented to a joint inquiry, this House would be in no way damnified thereby or precluded from considering this Bill when it comes up from the House of Commons in the ordinary way. As I understand, this is merely a "dummy" Bill, because the noble and learned Lord has not described its merits. We are simply discussing the procedure, and I understand that if the House assents to the Motion now before it we shall be simply assenting to the Second Reading, not with any reference to the merits of the Bill, but for the purpose of joining with the other House in Joint Committee. I apprehend that as soon as we have done this, and appointed the number of Lords to the Joint Committee,

1221
the Bill will be withdrawn, or, at all events, will be withdrawn as soon as the Joint Committee have reported to the other House. Then the Bill which is in the House of Commons, and which will have been considered by this Joint Committee, will come up to this House; and after the Second Reading, if the rights and privileges of this House are to be preserved, as the noble and learned Lord has stated, of course it will pass through the ordinary stage of Committee of the whole House. If any other procedure is followed, the rights of this House will be most distinctly interfered with. Suppose any private Member were to propose this course, the Government would most strongly object to it. I am not expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the Bill, but I do say that this procedure is, so far as we know, absolutely without precedent. We adopt it simply for the purpose of public convenience, and I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that it would not in any way interfere with the rights and privileges of the House. In fact, he went so far as to state that when the Bill came up for Second Reading any Member of your Lordships' House would have a perfect right to move its rejection. If any noble Lord has a right to move the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, why should the House not have the right to amend the Bill in Committee. I do not take any exception to this unprecedented procedure, but at the same time I do think we ought to have that right of expressing our opinion on the measure in principle and in detail which we enjoy with regard to any other Bill coming before us.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: It is quite true that this Bill is being read a second time formally today, and that we shall proceed on the House of Commons Bill when that Bill has been subjected to an inquiry by Joint Committee; has been returned to that House; has passed through all its stages there, and then comes up to your Lordships' House. It will be introduced and read a first time in this House, and will then come up for Second Reading, when a full debate can take place. As to the Committee stage, when I gave my previous answer, I regarded the private Bill aspect of the measure as controlling the procedure in this House, and I therefore thought that
1222
the Committee stage in the Whole House would be dispensed with, but I am now informed that the Bill, when it goes back from the Joint Committee to the House of Commons, will go through its Committee stage there, and that therefore, in the same way, when it comes up to this House, it will go through its Committee stage also.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
Then it was moved that the Commons Message of Tuesday, the 4th instant, respecting the London Water Bill (introduced in the House of Commons) be taken into consideration—(The Lord James of Hereford); agreed to; the said Message considered accordingly.
Moved to resolve, "That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, viz.: 'That it is expedient that the London Water Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons';" agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith.

YEOMANRY—POSITION OF OFFICERS—RECRUITING, &c.
VISCOUNT GALWAYasked for some explanation as to the position of Yeomanry officers under the Militia Act, and as to the state of recruiting for the Yeomanry. He said that a Memorandum had been issued by the Commander-in-Chief suggesting that Yeomanry officers who were enlisted before August of last year should resign their commissions and accept new ones under the Militia Act. It was thought by some persons that the Memorandum implied that all Yeomanry officers who did not comply with the request contained therein and come under the new conditions would be compelled to resign and thus practically dismissed. He hoped the noble and gallant Lord the Under Secretary of State for War would be able to make a satisfactory statement on that point. It was felt by a large number of officers that before accepting a new commission they were entitled to be informed what the duties would comprise. For instance, he had been told that it would be possible for Yeomanry

1223
officers to be summoned to serve on Courts-martial, to be called up for duty with cavalry regiments, and to be detailed for any other duty by the General Officer commanding the district. If so, it would make it extremely difficult to get Yeomanry officers. He urged the Government, in forming the new Districts, not to interfere more than was absolutely necessary with the recruiting areas of the old regiments. A civilian who went to South Africa with the company which he (Viscount Galway) sent out in January, 1900, and who served with them until his return last summer, had written, stating that he would like to rejoin his Yeomanry regiment. But as he lived in another county he could not be recruited. Another man wrote, stating that his greatest friends were in Viscount Galway's regiment, and that although he did not reside in the county he would very much like to join that corps. It is very hard on Yeomanry commanding officers to prevent them getting efficient men by a restriction against a man who happened to be residing outside a particular recruiting area from enlisting within that area. There was another important consideration, if the Yeomanry was to be made popular, namely, the granting of facilities to Yeomanry officers to obtain commissions in the Line direct through the Yeomanry as through the Militia.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the Circular sent out to Yeomanry officers. The Commander-in-Chief is most anxious that officers now serving should accept new commissions in accordance with the terms of the Circular. It is obvious that inconvenience may result from two sets of officers serving alongside one another under different obligations and conditions. I am able, however, to assure my noble friend that there is no intention of compelling officers to choose between resignation and coming in under the new Act. A refusal to come under it will not necessarily involve resignation; but all the officers from whom replies have yet been received have agreed to come under the new
1224
conditions. I am asked by my noble friend whether the particular liabilities under the new Act will include liability to be summoned to serve on Courts-martial, to be called up for duty with cavalry regiments, and to be detailed for any other duty by the General Officer commanding the District. The answer on these three points is in the negative so far as officers who are not actually embodied or called out for training are concerned. The chief object of bringing them under the Militia Act is to make them, like Militia officers, subject to the Army Act all the year round as individuals for disciplinary purposes. It is necessary to have a certain power over them in the event of their committing any military offence during the non-training period. The position of the Yeomanry officer will be exactly the same as that of the Militia officer now, and even in the present emergency no Militia officer has been called out for any military duty except on embodiment without his own consent. With regard to recruiting, by the latest returns the enrolled strength on January 1st was 17,000, of whom 2,883 have joined during the preceding quarter and 7,000 since the summer of 1901. As to the re-adjustment of recruiting areas, the old force consisted of only thirty-eight units; they are now fifty-three, and it is hoped that they will eventually be fifty-nine. The result has been that, owing to the formation of the new regiments, some of the old regiments have been debarred from recruiting in areas in which they have hitherto been allowed to recruit. There is no objection whatever to a man outside a particular recruiting area enlisting within that area, but, of course, the travelling expenses or marching money will not be paid, and commanding officers will not be allowed to offer inducements to men outside their recruiting area. Arrangements have been made that all large centres of population should be regarded as a common recruiting ground for all regiments of Yeomanry within a reasonable distance. The towns, especially market towns lying near to the border, are to be regarded as the recruiting ground for both regiments, and it will be left to the General Officer commanding the District to say what towns come within that category. Every General Officer commanding has been furnished with a statement showing the

1225
recruiting area which it is proposed to assign to the Yeomanry units under his command, and instructed to report whether the arrangements will meet the views of those concerned. The question of Line Commissions is still under consideration.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKexpressed his satisfaction at hearing that it had never been intended that Yeomanry officers should be compelled to come in under the Militia Acts.
LORD HENEAGEsaid he hoped that the Government would not relax too much the regulation now in force by which men who wished to join the Yeomanry were compelled to join the regiments in their particular counties. In Lincolnshire they were in a difficult position in this respect. After much delay they had obtained permission to raise a regiment of Yeomanry in that county, but they found that between 120 and 150 of the yeomen of Lincolnshire belonged to regiments in other counties, and naturally, if the regulations were relaxed, pressure would be put on those men to remain with their regiments.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENinquired whether the inconvenience which the noble and gallant Lord the Under Secretary had stated would result from two sets of officers serving alongside one another under different obligations and conditions would not equally apply to non-commissioned officers and men.
LORD HARRISsaid, with regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, that there were three classes of men serving in the Yeomanry—the class who could only be called out on imminent fear of invasion, the class who could be called out as soon as the Militia were embodied, and the class who came under the new Act and could be called out at the same time as, or before, the Militia were embodied. When he received the Commander-in-Chief's Memorandum suggesting that Yeomanry officers should resign and accept commissions under the new Act, he replied informing the General Officer commanding the District that he thought it unreasonable to expect officers to comply with that invitation unless they were informed of the new conditions under
1226
which they were asked to serve. As a result of that, the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted, and they drafted a Memorandum setting forth the difference between the conditions of service previous to the passing of the Act of last year and the conditions at the present time under the Act. He was now in a position to inform his officers of the nature of the obligations they undertook by complying with the request of the Commander in Chief; but he submitted that this information ought to have been supplied in the first instance. A great many extra demands were being made on Yeomanry officers. He was at the present moment serving on a Committee at the War Office, which he had been ordered to attend; but he did not believe the Commander in Chief had any power to order him to attend a Committee. He regarded the new proposals, so far as they assimilated the Yeomanry to the Militia, as a very great honour. There was not a single force in His Majesty's Service in any part of the world which deserved so much the gratitude of the whole British Empire as the Militia regiments. He doubted, however, whether it was possible to expect from the Yeomanry precisely the same services as were rendered by the Militia, as not only the officers of the Yeomanry but a large number of the men were employers of labour. The Secretary of State had pinned his faith to a very large increase of the Yeomanry, and he hoped that increase would be obtained. But the men would be of a very different class from the old yeomen, who owned their own horses and could be depended upon to turn up at the place of mobilisation fully equipped in two days. If we were to get the intelligent men employed in clerical work in large centres of population, some change would have to be made as regards length of training. He hoped in the new regulations there would be some elastic provision which would enable regiments, if necessary, to do their squadron drill at their squadron headquarters, so that the number of days' training might be reduced to fourteen.
THE EARL OF CORKalso expressed the opinion, as an old Colonel of Yeomanry, that there should be more elasticity with regard to the period of training. He agreed that they must expect a very different class of men from the old Yeomanry. The old yeomen

1227
were generally farmers who rode their own horses, but the men at present being recruited had to hire horses, which would prevent their being mobilised, at a time of emergency, as speedily as would have been possible in former days. The number of days training ought to be reduced to fourteen. The present length of training had been very detrimental to recruiting in Somersetshire.
LORD WENLOCKsaid that if the Yeomanry were to be largely increased the Government would have to be more generous in assisting new regiments. He objected strongly to the system that had been growing up of leaving new Yeomanry to be formed with the help of private subscription. He thought the Government ought to be prepared to put down the money, making what conditions they liked as to repayment.
LORD RAGLAN: With regard to the point raised by Lord Heneage, it is impossible to put pressure on men to transfer from one regiment to another. The position will be exactly the same as it is now in the Militia. There is nothing to prevent a man from serving in a regiment outside his own county, but he is discouraged to the extent that he receives no travelling expenses outside the recruiting area of the unit to which he belongs. With regard to the question of two or more classes of men serving alongside each other, I am afraid the difficulty cannot be removed except by disbanding the old force altogether and starting an entirely new one. As to the period of training, I would like to point out that there is considerable difference of opinion. I have heard several Yeomanry officers suggest that it would be better to train a regiment twenty-one days and give a certain amount of leave during that time, in order to enable small employers of labour to go home on Saturday and Sunday, pay their workmen, and see that their affairs were going on satisfactorily. I will inquire into the point raised by Lord Wenlock.

ARMY REMOUNTS—HORSE-BREEDING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the condition of the industry of horse-breeding in the United Kingdom. This subject
1228
has been so prominently brought to the notice of the country in connection with the question of remounts, that it is mainly, though not solely, on that ground that I wish to call the attention of the House to it, and to ask your Lordships to agree to the Resolution that stands in my name. I shall not, I think, be contradicted if I lay it down as a fact that the home-bred animal is, for military purposes, superior to any other. Among the many experiences, regrettable and other, of the present war is the very valuable knowledge acquired by actual experiment of the relative value of various breeds of horses. Basuto ponies, horses from Cape Colony, from Australia, New Zealand, America, Canada, Argentina, Hungary, India, and England have all been used in competition together, and, taking them all round, the English horse has proved itself to be the best. But I need not labour this point. The Report of the Assistant Inspector of Remounts, Colonel Birkbeck, is very instructive and conclusive. It may be summed up in one sentence, which I quote—
"Nothing has really come up to the English horse for cavalry and draught. Notwithstanding change of diet and climate, he has worked and stood hardship better than any other."
Of the quality of British horses there is no doubt; unfortunately for us, in quantity they were deficient. The registration system worked well, and we were enabled to send out from home a very considerable number of horses, not more, however, than about 20 per cent. of the total number of horses shipped to South Africa. The bad quality of a great number of the foreign horses is proved in the reports of the Assistant Inspector of Remounts, and is, in fact, generally admitted; and it is deeply to be regretted that we were unable to supply a larger number of superior animals from home.
If one fact has been demonstrated more clearly than any other during the progress of this war, it is the value of mobility. Now, mobility is mainly a question of horseflesh, and I do not think any military authority in this House will deny that if we had been enabled to supply a far larger number of suitable horses from this country, our

1229
military operations in the field would have been greatly facilitated. I take it, therefore, as proved that in the United Kingdom we have the best source of supply in the world, but that the supply is inadequate for our needs. And why is it inadequate? The United Kingdom is certainly the best horse-producing country in the world. Of that there can be no question. Why is it that our supply of suitable horses is not larger? The answer is very simple. The very excellence of our horses has proved our own undoing. For many years past foreign Governments have expended large sums of money and made every effort to possess themselves of our best sires and mares; and have succeeded, with the natural and inevitable result. The Royal Commission on Horse Breeding puts the matter very clearly. In their first Report in 1883 they say—
"Private enterprise was formerly sufficient to produce and keep a breed of horses in this country that was unrivalled in the world, and that pre-eminence was successfully maintained until the Governments of foreign countries became alive to the importance of acquiring an equal advantage for themselves. The foreign haras which were established for this purpose in various countries on the Continent created a most serious drain upon our resources in this country. There is no record, unfortunately, contained in any of the official statistics of the number of stallions which have been annually exported from the country, but it is a matter of common notoriety that year after year the United Kingdom has been swept by the agents of foreign Governments for stallions and mares best suited for their purposes. And they have been bought with public money, and taken from the country, frequently at prices with which it was impossible for private enterprise successfully to compete. The consequence of this has been, that, with the exception of the highest class of stallions and mares for the breeding of race horses, this country has been left for the most part with the inferior and even unsound animals which the foreign agent has rejected, and the result has been a gradual but marked deterioration in the general breed for which England was at one time famous."
The Viceregal Commission on Horse Breeding in Ireland speak in their Report to the following effect—
"Owing to the eagerness of foreign buyers to purchase good mares, and other causes, such as the serious depression in agriculture, the country has been practically drained of mares suitable to breed hunters, high-class harness horses, and cavalry remounts. Over large districts farmers cannot afford to pay a fee of more than a few shillings for the service of a stallion, and the number of private persons sufficiently well off to provide a valuable stallion at an unremunerative fee, for the public
1230
benefit, is exceedingly small. These causes, namely, the constant exportation of good mares, and the inferiority of the country stallions, must, unless checked, tend to the gradual deterioration in the produce."
Those Reports place the condition of the industry and the causes of its decline clearly before us. Foreign Governments spend very large sums of money. They offer prices for sound mares and suitable sires which the farmers, often impoverished, cannot resist. They have buyers all over the country, with the inevitable consequence that, in spite of private effort, and the collective efforts of societies and associations, a great national industry is going gradually to decay. From the military point of view, we have enabled foreign Governments to mount their cavalry and horse their artillery with the best material, and have deprived ourselves of the opportunity of doing the same thing. What our actual requirements are, is not easy to estimate. In normal times of peace they have amounted to about 2,500 or 3,000 horses annually, but I think I should not be gainsaid in stating that that amount was never really sufficient to thoroughly horse our Artillery or mount our Cavalry. A Cavalry Regiment, to be considered effective, ought to have its full complement of trained horses, and some reserved trained horses to cover the waste of a voyage and war. We shall in any case require a good many more remounts in the future. Our Field Artillery and Horse Artillery are to be increased; we have, or are to have, more Cavalry; and a comparatively new branch of the Service, the Mounted Infantry, has come into favour. Should I be over-estimating our peace requirement at 7,000 or 8,000 horses a year? If that is near the mark, we shall find some difficulty in satisfying it. It is still more difficult to say what our requirements during war would be. It would, of course, be absurd to keep a reserve of horses based upon the experience of this war, for this war is exceptional in a great many ways, which I need not now specify. But it must be borne in mind that in future wars we may be engaged in, it is highly improbable that we shall again have the whole world to draw upon for horses and other transport animals.
If the mounted branches of the service are really to be efficient, it cannot be denied that a large reserve of horses

1231
suitable for Cavalry remounts and for Field and Horse Artillery are necessary. This, then, is the state of the case—an increased and increasing demand, a decreased and decreasing supply. Differences of opinion may exist as to the legitimate functions of the State towards a decaying industry as such, but surely no difference of opinion can exist as to the duty of the State in the case of a sick and languishing industry, upon the health of which the efficiency of the military forces of the Crown depends. What steps ought the State to take? Speaking broadly, I am not in favour of following the continental system and of instituting horse breeding establishments on a large scale. That would be very expensive and quite unnecessary, and, in fact, would be attacking the evil from the wrong direction. Being so admirably designed by nature as a horse-producing country, all that the State can be asked to do is to give adequate encouragement to the individual breeder to produce the description of animal that the State requires. I do not mean, of course, to suggest that thousands of horses should be kept unemployed ready for the possible eventuality of war; that would be absurd. It is not necessary to do anything of the kind. It is not necessary, either, to attempt to produce a breed of horses in any sense unnatural to the country. All that is required is to perpetuate, to prevent from falling into decay, a breed of horses which is natural to us, indigenous to the soil. The United Kingdom naturally produces horses admirably suited for draught. That is the class of animal from which the Artillery horse is drawn. It naturally produces the best hunters and high-class carriage horses of the world. It is the misfits of these classes that make the best Cavalry remounts—the horses bred for hunters, but not quite good enough. These animals have breeding, bone, courage, and endurance, and make the ideal remount. That class of animal can be produced naturally in large quantities in this country, and would be produced if sufficient steps were taken to counteract the action of foreign countries. It is in that direction that our efforts should be concentrated.
It has been suggested that the assistance of the Colonies may be called in, and to that there cannot be the slightest objection. I should be the last man in
1232
the world to object to anything which tends to increase the community of interest between the mother country and her children. But we must look at the matter from a common-sense point of view. It would never pay the Colonies to breed to supply us in peace time, and it would never pay us in peace time to pay the freight for the horses; and in time of great demand in war, it is doubtful whether the capacity of the Colonies is sufficient to supply us with suitable horses in any very large number. Whatever may be done in that direction, it is certain that we must rely largely on home production; and the question is, how is the home industry and the home production to be rescued from decay and developed? We have the Reports of various Commissions, and the action of various Societies and Associations, to guide us. The Royal Commission was founded in 1887. Its functions were very limited; it was to report how the amounts previously given in Queen's Plates could best be expended in horse-breeding, the amount being only £5,100. They reported in favour of giving premiums to thorough-bred sires suitable for getting half-bred stock. They acted on that Report, and have continued to expend the small amount of money at their disposal in the same way ever since, and with very considerable advantage. But they have earnestly impressed upon us the necessity of offering premiums for mares so as to give a distinct inducement to owners to keep their best young mares in the country. In 1890 they made a point of that, and in their Report regretted—
"That the sum now voted by Parliament is totally inadequate to enable us to enlarge the field of usefulness of the Commission. The question of improving the quality of mares in this country is (they added) one of great importance, and continues to have the careful consideration of the Commissioners."
It is satisfactory to know that the question of improving the quality of mares occupied the careful consideration of the Commissioners, but what is the use of consideration without money? And what can the Commissioners be expected to do with such a paltry sum as £5,000 a year at their disposal? The Hunters Improvement Society has done most excellent work. Their aim has been to establish a breed of hunters, true to type, and they

1233
have been fairly successful. They have established a Hunters Stud Book, containing a register of mares suitable for breeding hunters, and of sires, particularly half-bred sires, with three strains of thorough-bred blood. The Society has done most excellent work, and should not in any way be interfered with, but the problem they have to face is infinitely too large for the means of any private society, and the same may be said of other associations connected with, horse breeding.
In Ireland the Royal Dublin Society long ago recognised the necessity of establishing a Stallion Register, and subsidising mares, and has to the best of its ability worked on those lines, with great benefit to breeders in Ireland. In 1897, the Viceregal Commission, of which I had the honour to be chairman, took a great deal of evidence on these points. The principal recommendations of that Commission were—
"That a system of registration of stallions, similar to that now in operation in the Royal Dublin Society's scheme, should be established of a very extended form; that money should be spent in distributing stallions where wanted throughout the country, and giving premiums to private owners of suitable sires; that substantial premiums should be given to owners of brood mares, especially those between the ages of three and six; that additional prizes should be given in the early spring to yearlings."
All these recommendations have been more or less acted upon by the Irish Agricultural Department. A register of stallions, thorough-breds, Clydesdale, and shire, has been established, and a certain sum of money is given yearly to each County Council to be expended by its Agricultural Committee, the sum being dependent upon the amount raised locally. In the county with which I am best acquainted, County Limerick, we receive this year from the Agricultural Department £600 and the Council raises £600. Of this money £400 is devoted to horses, £240 goes to premiums for mares, and £160 to prizes for young stock at local shows. The Royal Dublin Society spends its funds on premiums to stallions. This arrangement appears to be working very well.
All this experience points in one and the same direction, the necessity of either licensing or registering stallions, and of giving sufficient inducement to farmers to breed from good mares by offering
1234
premiums for mares and for young stock. All these societies have, in my opinion, been working on the right lines, but the funds at their disposal are not by any means sufficient for the purpose. Money is wanted, and it is not at all likely that, in a matter so important, the country will grudge it. The nation is waking up to the danger of its position. Last December the Devon County Council passed the following resolution—
"That in view of the national importance of an adequate supply of sound horses, this Council is of opinion that legislation should be introduced empowering County Councils to prohibit the use, for hire within their districts, of stallions suffering from hereditary disease."
This resolution has been adopted by the County Councils of the West Riding of Yorkshire and of Cornwall. It has been referred to Committees of other Councils and has been rejected by, I think, only two County Councils; and it has been endorsed by the Council of the Hunters Improvement Society and by the Royal Agricultural Society. The money that the State expends upon this most important national industry is utterly insignificant as compared with what other nations find it advisable to spend. France spends £86,000, exclusive of the cost of keeping up the breeding establishments, Prussia £192,000, and Austro-Hungary £303,000, while we are content with £5,100 in England, and about £8,000 in Ireland. As to what sum ought to be expended, I cannot, of course, express an opinion; nor do I wish to express any opinion as to the details of expenditure. The general lines upon which I think money should be expended I have mentioned in my Resolution. They are the lines which have been proved to work well. Stallions should either be licensed or registered. In all foreign countries it is a punishable offence to offer to the public an unlicensed sire. That might possibly be considered too stringent an operation in this country, but powers in that direction might possibly be given to local bodies. At any rate, sires should be registered, and registered sires should be provided in sufficient numbers, so that breeders could have access to them. A registered sire fifty miles away is of very little use to small farmers, who should at any rate have the choice of sending their mares to a sound sire. What is certainly equally important, a sufficient inducement should be offered to them to breed from

1235
good mares instead of selling them to the foreign buyer and breeding from mares not good enough for the foreigner to take. Possibly, also, something might be done, at an infinitesimal expense, by presenting to suitable breeders and farmers—under, of course, proper conditions—Artillery or Cavalry mares past their work, but suitable to breed from. As to details, I offer no opinion. All that I want is that the whole subject should be submitted to experts. It would be impossible to put together a body more capable of considering and reporting on this most important matter than the Royal Commission on horse breeding. If they were enabled to draw up a scheme of what they consider necessary, and an estimate of the annual sum required to carry out that scheme, I feel sure the country would have every confidence in their decision, and I should be well content to leave this most important national question in their hands.
Moved to resolve, "That, in view of the difficulty that has been experienced in finding horses suitable for military purposes, it is desirable that the Royal Commission on Horse-breeding should report on the steps which should be taken to encourage horse-breeding in the United Kingdom; and, in particular, as to (a) the establishment of a register of stallions, and as to the desirability of licensing stallions; (b) encouragement to farmers to keep sound young mares to breed from; (c) the amount of money required for the purpose."—(The Lord Kenry E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I was under the impression that the Royal Commission did put forward certain suggestions and proposals, I think in 1888 or 1890, and in this report they asked the Government to deal with their suggestions, but nothing has been done on the lines of their recommendations. Now that it is becoming evident that the supply of horses is diminishing, I sincerely hope the Government will take some steps to rectify matters. It would be absurd to shut our eyes to the fact that foreign nations have deprived us of some of the finest stock that could be purchased in this country. The stallions are bought
1236
and taken away for the American and foreign markets, and unless the animals have value enough for racing purposes, no one is willing to pay the necessary sum to retain in this country the stallions invaluable for breeding half-bred stock, but not of necessity stallions that are maintained for racing purposes as racing stallions. Very considerable benefit would be derived if the Government could see their way to purchasing so many of the very best stallions per year that would in the ordinary course be bought by foreigners, and, perhaps by means of a Stallion Department, a judicious distribution of these stallions could be made all over the United Kingdom, by which a very considerable advantage could be derived by England and other parts of His Majesty's home dominions.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: As a member of the Royal Commission, but speaking only in my individual capacity, I should like to say a few words on this subject. The real key of the situation is in the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, from our experience of Chancellors of the Exchequer, it seems likely to stay there. If the Government could see their way to buy horses a little younger for the public service and give a rather better price, I am certain that they would have more horses bred. The Royal Commission have told you exactly the position of horse politics in this country, and that, with the money at our disposal, we cannot really do all we would like to do. We have pointed out that we have no possible means of securing the best mares or of competing with the foreigners who are taking the best stock out of the country. But not the slightest notice has been taken, and, speaking for myself, I see no advantage in inviting the Royal Commission to merely repeat what they have told the Government every year since their appointment in 1888, unless, before they are asked to give their opinion on certain points, it is distinctly understood that a certain sum of money will be placed at their disposal to carry out their recommendations.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I regret that I had not observed

1237
this Motion on the Paper, but if I had, I do not know that it would have occurred to me that I should be expected to take any part in the discussion. It appears, however, so far as I am able to ascertain, that there is no member of His Majesty's Government who considers that it lies with his Department to reply to the observations which have been made on the subject. I can quite understand that the noble Duke the Master of the House, who would have been most competent to address your Lordships on the subject, should be unwilling to do so, because, as President of the Commission, it might be supposed that he was committing that body further than he was justified in doing without directly consulting them on the subject. For the reasons I have stated, I am afraid I can say very little except to recognise the importance of the subject. A good deal has been said about the actual deterioration of the breed of horses in consequence of the drain to which we have been for many years subjected by the purchase by foreign Governments of many of our best mares. I cannot help thinking that if this drain is, as has been alleged, an evil, and has tended actually to the deterioration of the breed, it is an evil which must have a tendency to work its own cure, because the demand which is alleged to have taken place on the part of foreign Governments must tend to establish a market for these animals, and make it better worth the while of farmers and breeders to breed the animals which foreign Governments require. I can well understand that it is very possible that foreign Governments may think it worth while to give a price for horses which our own Government has not yet seen its way to do, and that is a matter well worth the consideration of the Departments concerned. Reference has been made to the want of funds. I should think it would probably be found that the most effectual means of improving the supply of horses would be if the Secretary of State for War, with the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could see his way to increase the price which is given for remounts. That, I should think, would probably be a more effectual way than could be arrived at by any system of giving premiums for stallions or mares. I will take the
1238
opportunity of consulting those members of the Government who are chiefly interested—the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and also of taking the opinion of my noble friend who is at the head of the Commission as to whether any specific reference could usefully be made to that Commission. It has been admitted that if there is any recommendation to be made, there is no body which is likely to be able to give more valuable assistance than that Commission as it is at present constituted. The Commission has been constituted for the special purpose of distributing a certain small fund, which, as has been said, is totally inadequate to give much result. The Government will, however, consider whether the question brought forward by my noble friend could, with any advantage, be remitted to the Commission, and whether it should be suggested to them that they should make any definite recommendation on the subject.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I presume that after the noble Duke has consulted his colleagues on the subject, we shall be informed of the decision arrived at. I can only express my regret that the noble Duke did not observe this Motion on the Paper, but I am not responsible for that. I regret still more that no Department of His Majesty's Government appear to think it worth their while to take any cognisance of so important a national matter as horse-breeding. My noble friend Lord Ribblesdale said it would be very little use to ask the Royal Commission to formulate any scheme unless a definite sum of money was decided upon to be spent. I do not agree with him. Up to the present, the Royal Commission have never made any definite proposition. They have said that premiums ought to be given to mares, and so on, and have asked for more money; but they have never laid down a definite scheme or plan showing what steps should be taken for the benefit of this important industry, and what expenditure would be required. That is what I should like to see done. I do not think the country would grudge the expenditure of a few thousands a year in this direction, but they would like to know what the body of experts who constitute the Royal Commission

1239
Consider the best way in which the money should he spent. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I gather from the speech of the noble Duke that the Government would be inclined to adopt the recommendation of the Committee, even though it might involve expenditure. If effect would be given to any recommendation we might make, I think it would be worth while that we should be called together.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till tomorrow, half past Ten o'clock.