Lords Sitting of 13 June 1904

MILITARY MANœUVRES ACT, 1897.
The King's Answer to the Address of Thursday last, reported by the Lord Steward (E. Pembroke and Montgomery) as follows:—" I have received your Address, praying that I will make the Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which, was presented to your Lordships' House on the 8th March last. I will comply with your advice."
VISCOUNT DE VESCI.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Friday last, that the right of the Viscount de Vesci to vote at the elections of representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7); Commons Regulation (Merrow) Provisional Order; Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order; Local Government Provisional Orders No. 12).
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the
1418
following Bills have been complied with:—Carlisle Corporation; Lytham Improvement; Radcliffe Tramways and Improvement; London United Tramways; Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways; Thames Steamboat Service; Skipton Water River Improvement.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Tottenham Improvement; Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway, ought to be dispensed with and Bills allowed to proceed. Read, and agreed to.
Elvsèe Palace Hotel Company, Limited, Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Trafford Park Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
London County Council (Money) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3183. Portugal (North Portugal).
  No. 3184. France (Bordeaux).

  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  (Post Office Savings Banks Fund)—Account for the year ended 31st December, 1903; (Savings Banks Fund)

  1419
  (Friendly Societies Fund)—Accounts for the year ended 20th November, 1903.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL O CONFIRMATION BILLS
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 82 be suspended for the remainder of the session.

THE IRISH LAND PURCHASE ACT.
*LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that, following the meetings of the United Irish League in East Gal-way to which their attention has been already called in this House, strikes against payment of rent have taken place in that locality, with the object of compelling landlords to sell their property; and whether, with the view of checking such intimidation, they will refuse to sanction advances for purchase in any districts where it prevails, or take any other steps to prevent it.
In putting this Question, I must refer very briefly to matters which have already been mentioned in your Lordships' House. Just before the House rose for the Whitsuntide recess, my noble friend Lord West-meath called the attention of the Government to some meetings of the United Irish League, which had taken place in the South and East of Galway, and to some exceedingly inflammatory speeches which had been made at these meetings. I need not again read any extracts from the speeches which my noble friend quoted at the time. It may be sufficient to say that they all pointed much in the same directionߞnamely, that landlords were to be forced to sell all their property, note only the land in the occupation of the agricultural tenants, but the grazing lands besides, which they either had in their own hands or let to grazing tenants; and, further, that the tenants were not to deal directly with the landlords, but that the landlords were to be forced to sell to the Estates Commissioner. In fact, the landlords were to be given no option in the matter whatever. No overt act of illegality had taken place at that time,
1420
but my noble friend judged rightly that it was inevitable that after such speeches something of the kind would occur. His forecast has been completely verified.
A few days after the matter was before your Lordships' House—the following Sunday—a meeting was held in South Galway, where speeches of just the same description were made. There was one speech to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention in view of what took place subsequent to and in pursuance of it. It was a speech made by the Member for the South Division of the county, in which he is reported to have said—
"They all thought the Act a splendid Act, but they might as well expect a flock of blackbirds to give the people the land as expect the landlords to sell unless compelled by the determination of the people and by their organisation. I am glad that you are asked in the resolution not to buy, but by agitation to compel them to divide the grass land wherever an estate is offeredߞnot to buy unless the grass land is divided among the whole body of tenants."
Two or three days later rent-day occurred on three properties immediately adjoining. On the first property the tenants appeared, headed by the very Gentleman who made this speech, who asked to be allowed to state the case for the tenants. He began by speaking very handsomely of the good and harmonious relations that always existed between the landlord and the tenants on that property, but he wound up by demanding that the landlord should make over the the whole of his property, grass lands and all, to the Estates Commissioners, who would then, proceed to divide it among the tenants, or in default of that he demanded that the landlord should give a substantial abatement of the rent then due. The landlord refused to accept either of these alternatives. The tenants withdrew to consult, and finally a deputation waited upon the landlord and asked for an abatement of 4s. in the pound, and on that being refused they all left and declined to pay any rent whatever.
On another property adjoining, the tenants arrived accompanied by the chairman of the meeting to which I have referred. The landlord objected to this gentleman acting as spokesman, preferring apparently to deal with the tenants directly, and upon this they all left

1421
in a body and refused to pay any rent whatever. On the third property, which it appears had not attracted the attention of the United Irish League, the tenants came by themselves and all paid their rent. This is a distinct proof that the tenants in the other two cases were not acting on their own initiative, but under the influence of the League. It may be said that these are poor, ignorant people, and that they require some man of considerable education to put the case for them. Anyone who has much acquaintance with this class in Ireland knows that they are thoroughly capable of expressing their opinions and are remarkably keen hands at a bargain calculated to ensure success in life. In whatever other quality they may be deficient, it most certainly is not in astuteness or fluency of expression. It is, therefore, clear that these leaders attended, not for the purpose of explaining the case, but in order to keep the tenants in line and to see that they thoroughly obeyed the mandate of the League.
It may be thought curious in this country that men whom I have described as intelligent and astute should submit to such dictation, but those who make that objection know very little of the terrible power of an organisation such as that in Ireland, and the unscrupulous way in which its decrees are enforced. I will give an instance of a small property not far from my own home. It consists of a demesne, and some agricultural tenancies surround it. It is in the hands of trustees. Some time ago the tenants made an informal proposition to buy. They offered some very inadequate sum—I think fourteen years purchase—but they imposed the condition that the demesne should be split up and divided among them. The negotiations never went further, there being legal difficulties in the way, and the trustees having no power to sell; but the tenants were given to understand that such terms as they proposed were not likely to be accepted, Up to that time it had been the custom to let the demesne for grazing purposes to the surrounding farmers. An order was at once given that this was to be stopped. No one was to send cattle on to this demesne, and it was strictly boycotted. It remained derelict for some time, and
1422
finally was let to a farmer in the neighbourhood, one of the very few men who had got independence enough to stand out against the League. Well, what happened? This farmer was boycotted and threatened, and only a few weeks ago received a threatening letter ordering him to surrender the farm, and informing him that if he did not, there was plenty of powder and ball in the county to make him do so. On the occasion of an absolute fuel famine last winter, the agent told the tenants they might go and get the timber, of which a good deal was lying about in the demesne, the windfalls of the great storm of last year, and take it away for nothing, but they were afraid to do it, and preferred to go some distance away and buy fuel rather than get timber from this demesne for nothing. One of them had asked for help to repair his house, and the agent gave him an order on the steward for timber, but he was afraid to present it. It is clear that all this boycotting did not come from the tenants themselves, who would have been very pleased to forget all about it when they wanted fuel. It must have been done by superior order.
I think I have said enough to show your Lordships the tyranny exercised in Ireland by this League, and that it is impossible where this agitation exists that that freedom of contract can be maintained which exists in every civilised country. Further it is a source of considerable danger to the peace and prosperity of the country, for in cases where there has been an absolute strike against the payment of rent it is obvious that the landlord must adopt the only course open to him and take legal proceedings against his tenants. This has already begun. The result is that we shall have the old story of the land war and the plan of campaign, of which everyone in Ireland retains such vivid and painful recollection. Now if His Majesty's Government are content to sit with folded hands and serenely contemplate from an Olympian height the battle raving beneath them, contenting themselves only with expressions of stern disapproval of such illegality, and taking no active steps to restore tranquillity, the impression which unfortunately is now whispered

1423
about will be confirmed and strengthened, that His Majesty's Government are so bent on the success of the Act of last year, so anxious for the transfer of land from landlord to tenant, that they are not disposed to look too curiously into the means by which that transfer is brought about. That is not my opinion. I hold a diametrically opposite view. I am convinced that His Majesty's Government look upon intimidation and all other illegal actions with the abhorrence which it excites in every right-minded man; but I quote this to show the feeling of uncertainty and anxiety existing in the country owing to the agitation and the absence of any steps to check it. I think too that they must see the injurious effect, although I hardly think they recognise the extent of the injury, the absolutely paralyzing effect of such agitation on the working of the Purchase Act.
I would, therefore, ask His Majesty's Government, if they are not prepared to take any stronger steps, whether they will not refuse to sanction any agreements for purchase in districts where such intimidation prevails. It may seem at first sight a somewhat incongruous proposition to recommend the suspension of an Act of Parliament with a view to promoting its efficient working. But there are two things to be considered. There is the change in the tenure of land in Ireland and there is the suppression and prevention of illegality. The change in the tenure of land may be a matter of great public importance, but surely the prevention of illegality must come first. I am sure that is the view of His Majesty's Government. If that were not the case, undoubtedly the impression to which I have just alluded would be indeed confirmed that they were looking to the end rather than the means, and were conniving at agitation.
But I wish to point out that the step I suggest would not materially affect the progress of the Act. The districts affected are at present restricted in area, I am thankful to say, and few in number. How much this number may be increased or the area enlarged if the agitation is allowed to continue is a question which the future only can solve but at present they are restricted both in
1424
area and in number. Well, in these districts there is a deadlock already. The Act is a dead letter, for it is quite clear that the majority of the landlords would be prepared to face all obloquy, annoyance, and even personal danger, rather than submit to terms which must be ruinous to the interests both of themselves and their families. It may be said that even in these districts there might be a property in respect of which a perfectly voluntary arrangement might be come to. It is hardly possible that in such a district there could be a property not directly or indirectly influenced by agitation. But even supposing that such a highly favoured spot should exist, a sort of peaceful oasis, an "island valley of Avilion," sheltered in some mysterious manner from the surrounding tempest, and against which the storms of the United League beat in vain, the worst that could happen would be that the conclusion of the arrangements would be postponed. And it need not be postponed for long, for if the agitators and their followers and dupes found that nothing could be gained by agitation, but that actual loss would be incurred by the refusal of the Government to make any advances for purchase, the agitation would subside, and the country would be restored to a normal state of tranquillity.
If His Majesty's Government will not adopt that suggestion, let them take some other active steps to show that they are determined that the freedom of contract which ought to exist shall be maintained and that the Act which they brought in, in the hope that it would be an advantage and be acceptable to all, shall not be turned into an engine of oppression. At the risk of wearying your Lordships I must say one word on behalf of the landlords. I must repeat what we have often urged, and has never been controverted. Landlords are under no moral obligation to sell. They are not responsible for the state of confusion, of uncertainty and anxiety brought about by faulty legislation in the past. All that they can be accused of is the apparently unpardonable crime of still being possessed of some property which is coveted by others. If, however, the landlords are prepared to fall in with the views of the Government and to transfer to their

1425
tenants the remnant of their inheritance, the least they can expect is that they shall have a free hand in so doing, and shall not be starved into submission by the United Irish League.
LORD BARRYMORE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government, I should like to state that, though the Question of my noble friend refers entirely to the County of Galway, there are other parts of Ireland where the same attempts to compel landlords to sell by withholding payments of rent are taking place. It is within your Lordships' recollection that a very few weeks ago the noble Earl opposite, the Earl of Cork, described what was taking place on an estate of his in the immediate neighbourhood of Cork, where meetings had been held and violence used, and where the condition of things was exceedingly bad. Since then, I believe, that case has been settled on a purchase basis, but there are a great many other cases besides that one. I know of two recent ones in the East of the county of Limerick, and I also know of three cases where this has been going on during the past eighteen months in the west portion of the county of Limerick, adjoining the county of Kerry. I know of a case, almost in the west centre of the county of Cork, where the tenants on an estate which formerly belonged to a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House and which was purchased by another gentleman, refused last winter to pay any rent unless the present owner was prepared to sell at what he considered a ruinous sacrifice. Meetings were held, and he was denounced for declining to part with what was his own upon terms which he could not in justice to himself and to those who were joint owners in the estate regard as just and fair.
Then there is another case at the present moment in the West of the county, where the sheriff has already been defied, and where a very serious state of things is likely to result unless some very strong measures are taken by His Majesty's Government. There is a further case in the East Riding of Cork, where the tenants last year refused to pay their rent, telling the landlord that he must sell to them at exceedingly low terms. No rent has been paid for twelve months, and meetings
1426
have been held in the neighbourhood. Cattle were ultimately taken, some belonging to a Member of Parliament, and were sold in Cork by the sheriff. A meeting was afterwards held in the immediate vicinity, which was addressed by another Member of Parliament and at which the sheriff and the landlord were denounced. That portion of the fight has been concluded; but, notwithstanding that, the tenants on the rest of the estate have not paid for twelve months, and it is feared that serious consequences may result. This is a state of things which everyone who is interested in the peace of Ireland must most sincerely and deeply deplore. I am sure no one in your Lordships' House, and no man who owns property in Ireland is anxious to see another land war in that country.
The great Purchase Act passed last year by His Majesty's Government will, I believe, if given time, work satisfactorily and carry out the policy of the Government to a very large extent; but if attempts are to be made to force landlords to sell by illegal methods such as I have described it is impossible that the Act can work. The effect of its operation will undoubtedly be checked; we shall have a fresh land war, and sales, instead of taking place rapidly, will certainly be retarded, if not stopped. For the working of that Act time and patience are no doubt required. Negotiations cannot be carried out all at the moment, and I think that probably the Estates Commissioners will require a larger staff than they at present have if they are to perform the work which is required of them in a short time. I sincerely hope His Majesty's Government will do what they can to stop the illegal and violent methods which are being resorted to to force sales under the Act, for they will not only lead to grave disturbances throughout the country but retard the working of the Act itself.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clonbrock, who has introduced this subject, is entitled to speak with great authority on any question of this kind. He is identified by property and residence with that part of Ireland to which

1427
he has addressed himself, and there is no one in your Lordships' House who has sought to make himself more closely acquainted with everything that goes on there than my noble friend. My noble friend has very fairly prefaced his remarks by alluding to the occasions upon which topics of a similar character have been presented to your Lordships this session, and has mentioned what occurred on the occasion when my noble friend Lord Westmeath brought the matter under the attention of your Lordships last month. I am glad my noble friend said he did not for a moment think that the Government intended to regard this question calmly or with serenity from lofty heights. My noble friend who last spoke mentioned a different part of the country with which he is much more familiar, and spoke of instances occurring there which have attracted his attention and have also found their way into the Press.
I need hardly say that the question raised is one of importance, and that no Government would be justified inputting it aside as unworthy of close attention and examination. The particular matter that Lord Clonbrock brought forward had reference to a part of Connaught; my noble friend mentioned what occurred on some estates there, and also indicated what he thought might be a possible remedy. It is difficult to get any precise information as to the details of payment of rent on certain estates. Sometimes the tenants do not like to give it, and sometimes the landlords do not care to give it. I do not think it would be quite accurate to speak of strikes against the payment of rent. But unquestionably there have been refusals to pay rent on some estates, and landlords are sure to commence legal proceedings for their recovery; and if these proceedings result in decisions and decrees in favour of the landlords the Government, of course, will be bound to protect them in enforcing the awards of the law. Any attempt to compel landowners to sell by refusing to pay rent would be an endeavour to make the Act of 1903 compulsory, and would be open to the very gravest objection.
I think my noble friend was right in putting in the forefront of his observations the fact that the Purchase Act was a voluntary and not a compulsory Act.
1428
That is the only way in which it can be rightly regarded. It must be borne in mind that it is not an Act to be worked by coercion or undue pressure, but by the voluntary principle. The tenants are not compelled to buy; they can, if they please, remain tenants with all their rights and privileges under the existing Land Code. The landlords, on the other hand, cannot I be compelled to sell, and they must not be forced to do so by threats or any form of intimidation. I am only saying what has been said abundantly in reference to the intentions of the framers of this Act, and what is its manifest and obvious construction. If any overt act should be discovered, capable of proof, showing that any criminal act has been committed, the Excutive will not fail to act promptly and; with firmness. The attention of His Majesty's Government is steadily directed to the question, and they have no intention whatever of forgetting their duty. This fact has been mentioned twice by my noble friend Lord Denbigh, who spoke on former occasions on behalf of the Government; and as recently as 19th May last he said that the Government would be prepared to take all measures necessary for the purpose of protecting life and property, and for the purpose of enforcing the law. I hope that that statement, repeated now, will indicate that the Government have up to this date had their attention steadily and firmly directed to this question, that they recognise their duty, and have no intention of faltering in its discharge.
The noble Lord who called attention to this question asked whether, with the view of checking intimidation, His Majesty's Government would refuse to sanction advances for purchase in any districts where it prevails. My noble friend put that temperately and tentatively, but it was obvious that he himself saw the immense difficulties that lay in the way of carrying it out. In my opinion it would be impossible, and, I think, it would be illegal. The Act of last year is the law of the land. Its provisions are open to all, and persons who are in a position to invoke its provisions on their behalf with perfectly honest agreements between landlord and tenant should be able to do so. It would not be possible to suspend the Act in those districts and

1429
refuse to administrate a law which is on the Statute-book. In saying this I am saying what I have no doubt my noble friend anticipated. I assume that what he had in his mind was whether there were not some means by which those who were parties to this undue pressure might be made to recognise that they were defeating instead of advancing their interests. I am by no means sure that illegitimate pressure by tenants on the tenanted portion of an estate, to force the sale and division of untenanted land would not be a matter which the Commissioners would take into account in considering the circumstances of the case. Like the Congested Districts Board, it might be their duty not to sanction such sales if forced by illegal pressure. I believe that in the administration of the Congested Districts Board there are close inquiries in order to see that the proposals that are made for the sale of estates are free on both sides. I hope I have said enough to indicate that the Government are alive to the importance of the topics to which my noble friends have referred, and that they are not at all insensible to their duty in the matter.
*THE EARL OF WESTMEATH: My Lords, I do not wish to trouble your Lordships at any length to-day, as I ventured to put several Questions on this subject to the Government the other day. The Questions that I then put still remain unanswered. The reply, if I can call it such, which I received from the noble Lord on behalf of the Government did not deal with any of the points I raised. For instance, Lord Denbigh on that occasion went out of his way to quote an interesting and laudable speech by an Archbishop in an entirely different part of the country, which had nothing whatever to do with the point I brought forward. If any of your Lordships take the opportunity to read the Irish papers you will find that the occasions on which we bring forward our grievances in the House of Lords are always followed by articles showing the greatest depression and the greatest discouragement. We always obtain the same answer. The noble and learned Lord who has replied for the Government to-day, although he used language with somewhat flowery
1430
adornment, has given us the same answer that we always receive. We are told that the Government is watching what is going on, and that if only we will tell them of anything wrong they will take steps to remedy it. That is the answer we always receive. I think we have taken some trouble lately, by quoting speeches which are being made all over Ireland, to demonstrate what is taking place. My noble friend Lord Clonbrock has this afternoon shown His Majesty's Government that following on these speeches acts of the greatest illegality have taken place and are taking place. It is illegal not to pay rent, and there is now in the very districts to which I referred the other day a regular campaign and an absolute and definite repudiation of the payment of rents. The Irish newspapers are full of these facts.
I do not know what more the noble and learned Lord wants than an absolute refusal to pay rent. Think of the position of the poor landlord in some parts of the West of Ireland. He is put to great trouble and expense; he has heavy charges to meet; he is not at all ready to enter into a prolonged fight against his enemies; the odds are ten to one he may have to give in, and he sells his land at a price which will hardly pay the charges on his property. Do people in this country know, when they see the returns of sales which have actually taken place, how many of those sales are brought about by pressure? Or do they imagine that they are all voluntary? I confess I should like to hear the views of the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister on this subject, not only as Leader of this House, but also as one of the members of the Treasury Bench who from his position as a great Irish landlord himself must be acquainted as well as we are with everything that is going on. He must know that the answer which the noble and learned Lord has given tonight will be received to-morrow in the Irish Press with ridicule and contempt on the one side and with discouragement and disappointment on the other.
I venture to ask the noble Marquess if he will take steps to try and make clear to these agitators all over the country that they will gain nothing by carrying on their present programme. I do not know if it would be illegal, as the noble and

1431
learned Lord seemed to suggest, to suspend the Act in cases where intimidation has taken place; but in cases where we can show that speeches of the most menacing character have been delivered and that these have been followed by such illegal acts as the complete stoppage of rent, and where this again has been followed by the collapse of the opposition of the landlord and by his being forced to sell his land at a price which will not only not pay him, but will induce his neighbours in the long run to do the same—if this can be definitely shown, I think we are entitled to claim that the Act, instead of being a boon, as it might be, will be the greatest curse; and if it cannot be shown that such a course would be illegal, I think we are entitled to ask that the Act should be suspended in such cases, and that landlord and tenant alike should be deprived of advantages which might be conferred under happier circumstances.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, so far the great Act which was passed last year has not been the success its promoters wished it to be. Landlords, although they are not anxious to sell their property, are yet ready to part with the tenanted portion of it if they can obtain a price they consider reasonable. The tenants, on the other hand, profess to be ready to buy, but they are not so far ready to give a price at which landlords can sell. If matters remained there, I think they would find their own solution. IE the tenants were anxious to buy, their offer would increase; on the other hand, if landlords found they were in want of hard cash, they would be obliged to make some further sacrifices in order to obtain it. But the case is an entirely different one when an outside agency steps in, and when that agency is the United Irish League.
Noble Lords who have spoken have pointed out what the effect will be on impoverished landlords of refusal to pay rent; but I would call your Lordships' attention more especially to another matter which prevents the Act from working, and that is the determination which is evinced not to purchase holdings unless the landlord is prepared to sell what the tenants are pleased to call his grazing ranches. County councils,
1432
district councils, local newspapers, village agitators, all insist on this. And what are these grazing ranches? Grass land on which the landlords have spent large sums of money in drainage and in various improvements. These are the lands on which cattle are fed—those cattle which are one of the most valuable assets we have in the West of Ireland. Everybody is agreed that it is desirable that landlords should remain in Ireland, that they should remain there to spend at least the interest of the money they receive for the sale of their tenanted lands, and not only that, but, if the country is quiet, that they should invest a portion of the principal in the development of their native land. But you cannot expect men to live in a country if they have no inducement to live there, and if you take away all their grass lands, you take away from the landlords every inducement to remain there. I am quite certain that unless His Majesty's Government adopt a firm attitude in suppressing any attempts to compel landlords to part with their untenanted land the Act of last year will remain a dead letter in those portions of Ireland where it would do the greatest good.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I think hardly anyone in England at the present moment realises how serious a future is threatened for Ireland. The Land Act of 1903 was introduced with the object of being the instrument of peace in Ireland, but I greatly fear it shows that it may be instead the foundation of war and of another land campaign. The spirit of compulsion to which my noble friend Lord Clonbrock has already alluded, is not, unfortunately, merely local. It shows signs of spreading to other parts of Ireland, and how far it will spread depends on the attitude that is taken up by His Majesty's Government. The reply that the noble and learned Lord has given will be read with the greatest interest by everyone in Ireland. There is, as Lord Clonbrock has said, a feeling amongst the Nationalist and tenant Party that they may act with impunity. The noble and learned Lordhas said that if we point out any illegal action His Majesty's Government will at once take measures for its suppression. I venture to submit that the facts and

1433
instances which have been brought forward to-day by Lord Clonbrock show the existence of illegalities, and I hope that not only assertions of disapproval will be given, but active steps taken to prevent a repetition of such illegal acts Otherwise the spirit of compulsion and illegal agitation will spread every day and become stronger. I hope we may hear that strong steps will be taken, otherwise the Land Act will become, not an instrument of peace, but an instrument of war.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I understood the noble Lord who spoke from the BackBench (the Earl of Westmeath) to complain of the answer of my noble and learned friend beside me on the ground that it did not give to your Lordships a sufficient assurance as to the attitude which His Majesty's Government intend to assume towards these combinations in Ireland. I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl scarcely followed as closely as he might the reply of my noble and learned friend, or fully realised the import of his words. For, my Lords, what was the position which the noble and learned Lord took up? He reminded your Lordships that the Purchase Act of last year was in its essence a voluntary Act—voluntary both as regards landlord and tenant; and he pointed out that, that being so, any attempt to bring about sales by means of coercion was necessarily illegal. The noble and learned Lord also pointed out that in those cases in which the landlord resorts to civil remedies in order to compel the payment of the rent which is due to him, the landlord will, provided, of course, he is able to satisfy the Courts that his claim is a good one, receive the support of the Government, and that his representatives will be given the protection to which they are entitled at the hands of the Government.
Then there is the further case in which the difficulty arises, not out of the application of the civil law, but in consequence of criminal acts. In regard to those cases the noble and learned Lord explained that whenever any overt act of a criminal kind was committed the Irish Government were fully prepared to deal with it.
1434
Does the noble Earl behind me expect us to state here which are the cases in which it may or may not be possible to invoke the aid of the law in a particular manner? My noble friend Lord Barrymore mentioned to your Lordships a number of cases in which there had been combinations to resist the payment of rent in order to coerce the landlord into purchase. Obviously it is not in our power in this House to say which of those are cases in which a particular remedy can be applied.
It struck me, listening to this discussion, that the remarks made by noble Lords from Ireland, while no doubt they portray faithfully the unfortunate state of things which exists in some parts of that country, do not afford us very much help or suggestion as to the most appropriate means of dealing with the difficulty. For, my Lords, what is the only suggestion which has been made to us to-night? It is that in districts where these combinations have taken place the Government should refuse to sanction any advances for purchase. That, surely, if interpreted according to the obvious meaning of the words, is a suggestion which on the face of it we can scarcely be expected to regard with favour. For what does it come to? It comes to this—that in a particular district where, let us say, half the estates are the theatre of these operations and the other half are not, the law-abiding and well-conducted tenants on those estates, where rent has been punctually paid, are to be debarred from the great privilege conferred upon them by the Act of last year in order that they may suffer vicariously for the misdoings of their neighbours on the other estates in that district. That seems to me to be a suggestion which savours of considerable injustice, and which the Government can scarcely regard as a very practical guide. But if the noble Lord merely intended that, where on a particular estate or estates it can be shown that an agreement for sale has been the result of conspiracy or of coercive action on the part of the tenants, in those cases the sale shall not be allowed to proceed, then I think what the noble and learned Lord said ought to satisfy him, because I understood the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to say that, in

1435
his opinion, the Courts can, under the existing law, withhold their consent to a sale if it is established to their satisfaction that the agreement for sale has been brought about by illegal methods. And the noble and learned Lord went on to say that a discretion of that kind was actually exercised by the Congested Districts Board. Up to that point I think the principle which the noble Lord who spoke first advocated is reasonable enough, but if it be further extended, then I must say it seems to me to be a most inequitable one. I think what has been said by my noble and learned friend should be enough to show your Lordships that we regard this matter as one of very serious importance, and that we are very far indeed from adopting towards it that attitude of Olympian indifference which was attributed to us by my noble friend behind me.

THE IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
LORD LOVAT,who had given notice "To call the attention of the House to the defects of equipment, training, and organisation of the third branch of the Auxiliary Forces, the Imperial Yeormanry," said: I wish your Lordships to consider whether the Yeomanry, as at present constituted, is ready to take its part as a fighting force in defence of the Empire. From the fact that His Majesty's Government did not include the Yeomanry in their reference to the Commission on the Auxiliary Forces, I think it is fair to draw the inference that the Government do not appreciate the grave state in which that force is. The present moment is, I think, a suitable one for the discussion of this matter. There is shortly to be an important debate on the subject of the Auxiliary Forces generally, and I think this discussion to-day may lead to suggestions being brought forward which will be of value in the consideration of the general subject. I do not propose to discuss questions which affect only individual regiments or districts, but shall confine my remarks to those points which affect the Yeomanry as a whole. I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to read two statements which appear in the
1436
Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. The first is—
"We are agreed in the conclusion that the Volunteer Force, in view of the unequal military education of the officers, the limited training of the men, and the defects of equipment and organisation, is not qualified to take the field against a Regular Army."
The second statement is—
"We are forced to the conclusion that the Militia, in its existing condition, is unlit to take the field in the defence of the country. We think, however, that these defects arise from causes beyond the control of the officers and men."
I will not go into that matter further, beyond observing that these extracts are not without their significance.
I venture to say that the Yeomanry are by no means ready as a fig n ting machine. In the first place, the force is not armed. Those regiments that have swords issued to them have not enough to go round, and the great majority of Yeoman have no we upon beyond the rifle. I do not think I need dwell upon the necessity of a steel weapon of some kind in defence. All the mounted troops in Europe possess such an arm, and I do not see why the Yeomanry should be the only force without it. The musketry of the Yeomanry, judged by the Returns, is no better than that of the Volunteers, and, owing to our system of instruction, there is little hope of improvement. In the Yeomanry Regulations it is laid down that every officer, before rising to the next rank, must qualify in a course of musketry; but on looking through the Army List I find that over half the regiments of the Imperial Yeomanry contain only one officer, or have no officer, who has been through the higher course. We all know the indifference in the Cavalry on the question of musketry, and as these men are now the only instructors who instruct the Yeomanry squadrons it is not possible, under the present arrangements, that these squadrons will ever reach any high standard of efficiency in musketry. There is at present no method for training the senior officers of the Yeomanry. If they go to a school they are put in the same class as subalterns, and are taught in exactly the same way. They have also the power, it is true, of being attached to cavalry regiments, but I think any

1437
cavalry soldier will know exactly the amount of instruction which, under existing circumstances, they are likely to get there, or the chance they will have of handling troops.
Another weakness is in organisation. I am not to-night going into the question of mobilisation, or into the question as to who are to command various units. I understand that the War Office have some scheme on this subject which is shortly to be made public. But on the question of organisation I think it is fair to offer criticism at the present moment. Just as companies constitute regiments so, in time of war, regiments will have to be made up to constitute brigades. Now, who are going to act as commanders? I do not ask for individual names, but what class of officer is be going to be? Is the officer who is to command a Yeomanry brigade to be a Yeoman? I do not think that is possible. Or is he going to be a cavalry officer? There are great difficulties in the way of his being a cavalry officer. The cavalry drill and the Yeomanry drill are two distinctly different things, and, moreover, there are no means, at the present moment, of getting the necessary connection between those who understand cavalry drill and those who understand Yeomanry drill, because both of the books are out of print. A cavalry officer, accustomed to command a smart regiment or brigade in which a certain depth is occupied, will not be able to handle efficiently a brigade where the extent of ground covered and the time taken in manœuvres are entirely different. If a cavalry leader takes over a Yeomanry brigade at once, he will require a considerable period in order to get full work out of that brigade, and to find out what his Yeomanry officers know, and, still more, what they do not know. We have heard nothing about this question having been considered, and no steps have been taken to put commanding officers of Yeomanry in touch with officers commanding brigades.
On the question of staff, I think it will be admitted that the condition of the Yeomanry is even worse. The fifty-six regiments will, no doubt, be divided into eighteen brigades, but you will want considerably more than eighteen staff officers to run those brigades. The more untrained the units the better trained your staff officer must be Now, where are
1438
the staff officers to come from for the Yeomanry brigades if we went to war tomorrow? In the Army List you will find two lists of qualified staff officers—the first is a list of those who have passed the Staff College, and the second a list of those who are qualified for staff duties. You will no doubt expect cavalry officers to do the staff work of the Cavalry; yet if you look through the List from end to end you wilt find only one man. I do not speak of those who are at present occupying other posts. I only refer to those of major and captain rank. If you have not got cavalry officers, what other officers will you have to command your brigades? Will you have Yeomanry officers? Your difficulty in not having any instruction for senior Yeomanry officers comes in there; and, if you mobilise to-morrow, is it likely that the various commanders of regiments would hand over their best officers to run a brigade for any man, especially for a General they did not know?
I come now to the question of signalling. We in the Yeomanry are supposed to be the advance guard, the scouts of the Army, and, as is well known, it is not only necessary for men in the advance guard to get information; the next thing must necessarily be the rapid transmission of it. Yet what do we see in the matter of the training of the Yeomanry force in signalling? At the present moment there is not one regiment in the whole force qualified for signalling. Therefore, however good the work they may do in front may be, it is totally lost because they are unable to transmit it. Again, in the matter of transport, things are even worse. I will take the Northern District. In Scotland there are 100 battalions of Volunteers, Militia, and Regulars. There are there exactly two transport companies. Is it likely that they are going to give the whole of those two companies to the Yeomanry? I do not think that is in the least probable. So far as I can make out, there is not one single officer who has got a certificate for any knowledge of transport; and you have got no qualified wheelwrights or saddlers, for the reason that you do not pay them. If they do exist in certain regiments if is by fortuitous chance and not as the result of the action of the authorities. This

1439
fact, if it does not disqualify the Yeomanry, at any rate limits the good the force can do in the field.
I can assure your Lordships that I am very far from taking a pessimistic view of the Yeomanry as a whole. I regard the force, if properly worked, as capable of being made a most efficient body. It only requires a little thought at the War Office, and, what is more necessary, action there, to get over most of these difficulties. I do not think we are asking too much. At present, Yeomanry officers, when they go for a musketry course to Hythe, have a week's instruction in Maxims and other things they will probably have nothing whatever to do with afterwards. Why not have a division of the course, and make short courses locally for musketry, with the longer course at Hythe for those who wish it? We really must have some course of instruction specially for senior Yeomanry officers, and one for junior officers. In no school are scholars in the sixth standard taught in the same class as those in the first standard; yet this is what takes place at present in regard to the instruction of Yeomanry officers. As to the question of brigadiers, I do not ask that they should be appointed at once, but I think they might be provisionally appointed. Commanding officers would then know who they would have to command them, and would be able to find out their views on the different subjects that crop up.
With little difficulty, again, the signalling could be made efficient. The total grant, if the signallers are qualified, is the princely sum of £12. This is a sample of the help which the War Office gives to commanding officers to assist them in making their units efficient in signalling. The solution with regard to transport is so obvious that I will not dilate upon it. There ought to be some method of paying wheelwrights and saddlers and men who are essential to running transport. In the South African War a number of officers paid wheelwrights and saddlers themselves because it was absolutely necessary to have with them men able to do the small jobs which always crop up in a campaign. The Yeomanry are far from being in a satisfactory condition at the present moment. I do not speak as regards units, but the whole Yeomanry
1440
as a fighting force; and, when appealing to His Majesty's Government to meet the Yeomanry in some form, I would ask them not to rush into reforms as rapidly as they are in the habit of doing, but, in consultation with the senior Yeomanry officers, to go thoroughly into the matter.
EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not intend to take up your Lordships time by any lengthy remarks this evening, because I understand there are some officers directly associated with the Yeomanry who desire to speak on this occasion. I would only like to refer to a few of the points which my noble and gallant friend Lord Lovat has brought forward. In regard to musketry, I cannot lay too great a stress on the necessity for every branch of the military service being experts in musketry. It is just as necessary for the Yeomanry as it is for the Infantry soldier, and I can quite understand the difficulty which Lord Lovat points out which arises from the want of sufficient instructors. If musketry in a regiment is to be learnt satisfactorily the officers must take the lead. They must themselves understand how to teach their Men.
There is no doubt that it is difficult in Yeomanry regiments, especially like Lord Lovat's, which is scattered in the North of Scotland, for the officers to come all the way down to Hythe to get a musketry certificate. I am sure that when this matter is brought to their notice, the War Office will endeavour to meet that difficulty by making some arrangement by which perhaps a less decided certificate can be given to officers for a course sufficiently long to enable them to train their men at some local range under local conditions? It is hardly to be expected that a sufficient number of officers can come all the way from the North of Scotland to the south of England to go through a musketry course, but at the same time it is absolutely essential, if the men are to be expert in musketry, that their officers should know how to teach them. With regard to the weapon, it has been thought necessary that every soldier should have some weapon with which to defend himself. The rifle is his first weapon, but he must have something besides. It was decided, wisely as I

1441
think, that the Yeomanry should not be armed with the sword, but with something else, and the only other weapon at present available is the bayonet. I cannot remember how it was—and I failed to get the information at the War Office to-day—that the bayonet was not given to the Yeomanry. The question was discussed, but there is no record showing exactly how it was that the distribution was stopped. That is, however, another suggestion to which I think the War Office will be sure to respond when it is called to their attention. I do not for a moment hold a brief for the War Office, but I am sure that my noble friend the Under-Secretary will give satisfactory answers on the several points which the noble and gallant Lord has brought forward. All I would say is that the Yeomanry is a service which is well worthy of encouragement, and of every effort to make it efficient. In future wars we shall require more mounted men to do the work: than have hitherto been the case, and the Yeomanry is the force I look forward to as the body which will be in England to take the part of the mounted troops abroad. Everything, therefore, I hope will be done to encourage the Yeomanry and to meet their wishes as far as the financial difficulties can be overcome.
*THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, and also with what was said by the noble and gallant Lord opposite. Although musketry is, perhaps, the most important part of our defensive armour, no changes whatever have been made in the way in which Yeomen obtain their instruction in musketry. The same system obtains to-day as when the men were attested under the Volunteer Act. For instance, although a Yeoman is a Militiaman to all intents and purposes, it was with some difficulty that I obtained permission for my trop to use the Government ranges and this stipulation was added, that I should not only pay for the canvas of the targets but should employ the Government markers and not be permitted to put my own men in the butts. I contend that not only should ranges be provided by the Government, but
1442
also markers. There is another matter in which a more sympathetic attitude might be shown, and that is in the choice of inspecting officers. I know a case of a regiment this year which was inspected by an ex-cavalry captain whose name does not and has not for the past fifteen years appeared in the Army List. This can hardly be taken as a compliment to a Yeomanry regiment in which were serving officers who had seen a considerable amount of service in the Regular Army. Last year the regiment to which I have the honour to belong was inspected by the present Inspector-General of Cavalry, and that inspection did the regiment more good than any five inspections it had had before. And for this reason. Not only did the Inspector-General take the officers into his confidence, but he took the men also. He called up each Group Leader and pointed out their faults in a most sympathetic manner. That, I consider, is something like what an inspection of a Yeomanry regiment should be. It should have for its object the promotion of the highest possible efficiency in each particular unit.
There is another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government—namely, the period of re-attestment. It seems to me rather hard that after a man has served his first three years he should be asked to re-attest for another three years. There may be excellent reasons for that, but I cannot help feeling that we should retain a larger proportion of our older men, who are so necessary to a regiment, if the period of re-attestment was made from year to year after the first period of service had expired. The Yeomanry service would gain considerably by such a change. His Majesty's Government would also do well to thoroughly consider what has been said in regard to the question of signalling. There are in most regiments a very keen lot of young fellows ready to take up signalling and do their best to perfect themselves in it; but in order to obtain the Government grant you must, I think, have fifteen men who are thoroughly trained, and it is necessary for them to go through a three months course. It is quite impossible to obtain the number of men in any Yeomanry regiment who

1443
are able to give up that amount of time. I think that for the Yeomanry a more simple system of signalling might be adopted. I do not wish that it should be taken from any of my remarks that I am not deeply sensible of the immense amount the War Office has already done for the Yeomanry service, but I do appeal to them to further encourage the men in the great interest which they now take in the force.
*LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I take the opportunity of congratulating my noble and gallant friend opposite on having brought this subject forward, independent of any more elaborate discussion upon the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. I am glad, however, that I am not able to take the altogether pessimistic view that my noble friend does of the Yeomanry force. In the first place, I do not understand why he should have relegated it to the low grade he has done. He refers to it as the "third branch" of the Auxiliary forces. My impression is that the Imperial Yeomanry are now Militia, and are, therefore, the first branch; at any rate, they always were the second. The noble and gallant Lord has pointed out—and I am quite certain the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War is only too grateful to those of us who belong to the Imperial Yeomanry for any suggestions we can give him—various directions in which it is possible to help us. My own idea is this, that what has got to be kept in view is not whether the force is competent for the defence of the Empire, as my noble and gallant friend opposite said, because the Yeomanry as a force is not intended for the defence of the Empire, but whether it is competent for the defence of these Island.
It is reasonable to ask His Majesty's Government to put us in the position where we should be most useful for that purpose, but it is entirely unnecessary that we should be placed in a position to be able to go outside these Islands.
LORD LOVAT: I used the term"Empire" in the sense of the greater including the less.
*LORD HARRIS: In the matter of transport, my noble and gallant friend is
1444
very critical of the present arrangements, can quite understand that from his I great experience in South Africa he sees the enormous defects, if you can call them such, there are in the present arrangements; but, at any rate, they are an advance on what obtained before the war. In the case of my own regiment, I have been able to make a contract for such allowances of carts as are laid down in the regulations. I have not the slightest doubt that on the day of mobilisation those carts will be there, and for the work. We have to do I believe they will be sufficient. It must be remembered that any scheme for the attack and invasion of England must be by a rush, and, if that is so, we may depend upon it that it will have to be replied to by a similar rush on our part against the invaders. There will be very little time to think of elaborate preparations for transport, heavy or light, or of the artificers—wheelwrights, saddlers, and so on. These are undoubtedly very necessary in a long I campaign, but I doubt if they are highly essential in the kind of campaign which would undoubtedly take place in the event of an invasion of England. Therefore, upon points of that kind I confess I do not see with the Same eye as my noble and gallant friend opposite.
But there are one or two points upon which I absolutely agree with him and with the noble Marquess. I do think it is ridiculous that we have got no second arm. We have the rifle, and some regiments have a certain number of swords, though not enough to arm all their men. But we have not got the arm which is generally attached to the weapon, the sword bayonet. The noble and gallant Field Marshal thinks the Yeomanry ought to have it, and has been trying to ascertain from the War Office why we have not got it. My regiment had it one year and then it was withdrawn. Why it was withdrawn I cannot say. If the War Office will only lay down which weapon we are to have, I am certain the men will give as close attention to its drill as they did when they had swords. At the present moment I have about half as many swords as I have men. A certain I number are issued to each squadron for the purposes of sword drill. Nevertheless, the men have given their whole

1445
attention to the rifle and do not care for the sword as they used to.
As regards musketry, it is a little ungracious, perhaps, to criticise the War Office. The authorities are endeavouring, within such pecuniary means as are allowed them by the Treasury, to give opportunities in all parts of England for the study of their profession by soldiers; but, as a matter of fact, it is impossible, with only one school of musketry at Hythe, to train all the officers of the Auxiliary as well as the Regular Forces who are anxious to learn musketry. I would venture to suggest that a course as long as a month is hardly necessary in the case of officers of the Auxiliary Forces. This is one of the great difficulties. As regards signalling, the position is this. A grant is allowed to a regiment if it can produce a certain number of men who are signallers. I think the number is twelve; but those men cannot be called signallers unless there is an officer in the regiment who has gone through the school for two months. I have an officer in my regiment who is extremely anxious to get a certificate for signalling so as to qualify the men for the grant. In order to get it he is called upon to leave his business for two months in the year, which, of course, is impossible. He is ready to go to school in the town in which he lives, which happens to be a garrison town, but the authorities will not allow that. He must go the town where the school is. I think some modification of that regulation might be possible. Not that the grant is of very much value. It is more that the men should be encouraged by the knowledge that they are an organised group of signallers.
I do not, as I say, take the pessimistic view that my noble and gallant friend opposite does of the Imperial Yeomanry. I have known the Yeomanry for over thirty years. I knew what it was before the war, and I know what it is now, and we cannot be too grateful to the Government and especially to Mr. Brodrick for what he has done for that force. I firmly believe that if the kind of attack upon this country to which I have referred, and which I have always understood is the only kind of attack possible, should take place, the
1446
Yeomanry force will be a most useful body to set against it. There is this to be remembered, that every year the Yeomanry is turning into the civil population something between 3,000 and 5,000 men who have been taught to ride about the country with a rifle in their hand, and many of whom are first-class shots. Notwithstanding the various' defects to which attention has been called, which I do not think are of the importance my noble and gallant friend imagines—although I join with him in the wish that the War Office maybe able to help us in arriving at a greater state of efficiency—I contend that the Yeomany force is doing a great deal of good in the country.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I wish to make one or two remarks on the points raised by Lord Lovat, and on the question of inspection to which the Marquess of Winchester referred. I am entirely in accord with the noble Marquess as to the great importance of inspections, and I agree with him that some sort of continuity of inspection is desirable. I am not sure, however, that the noble Marquess fully appreciates the difficulties with which the War Office have to deal in this connection. Those difficulties arise principally from the fact that so many regiments come out at the same time, necessitating a very large number of inspectors. I think the difficulty might to a certain extent be overcome if the Yeomanry would help the War Office by making their arrangements so that the regiments did not all come out at the same time. If a variation of a few days was made it would be possible to meet the difficulty.
I will take as an instance Yorkshire. An officer might be able to inspect the Yorkshire Dragoons on Monday and Tuesday, the Hussars on Wednesday and Thursday, and the East Riding Regiment on Friday and Saturday. That would enable one officer to do this district, whereas three were required last year. We had to employ twelve inspecting officers last year. The only legitimate inspectors, putting on one side, of course, the late Commander-in-Chief, were the Inspector-General of Cavalry, the Inspector-General of Yeomanry—which position, I believe, is about

1447
to be done away with—and the Assistant Adjutant-General of Cavalry. After these three were employed it was necessary to go all over England to find other inspectors, and your Lordships will easily imagine the difficulty that arose. I believe that arrangements have been made this year to inspect the regiments in the Army Corps or in the district to which they belong, but this has not entirely done away with the difficulties the noble Lord alluded to, because in the North-Western district there is not a single cavalry regiment quartered, and inspectors will have to be borrowed from other parts of the country. I venture to suggest that some staff officer, preferably an ex-cavalry colonel, should be attached to each of the headquarters of districts so that he may be able to inspect the regiments in his district and also have charge of them at other times of the year, look after their musketry, etc., and act as brigadier. I venture to suggest with all due deference to Lord Lovat that ex-cavalry colonels might be the most efficient in this direction. I do not think the cavalry colonel who has had charge of a smart regiment will have much difficulty in picking up Yeomanry drill. If this practice were adopted of having a staff officer at the headquarters of each district, we should get greater continuity in the system of inspection, and the standard to which the Yeomanry hope to get would be much better understood.
It has been suggested that if Yeomanry regiments were not always inspected on the last two days, a large number of inspectors would not be necessary, but I should object to having them inspected on any days other than the last two, because regiments, as it were, "play up" for the inspection, and directly it is over a natural re-action sets in. I do not think that the days that succeed the inspection, if it were held earlier, would be so profitable as those which precede it. With regard to signalling, I think some simpler and more abbreviated form might be adopted. It is impossible to expect men who are not professional soldiers to give up three months, which is the length of the course the ordinary soldier has to go through, to learn signalling. I am perfectly certain that ii some short and simple plan of signalling was adopted, by which the commander of a regiment or column
1448
could tell what enemy was in sight and whether or not the ground was occupied on both flanks, that would be all that the Yeomanry would really want. This could be done by a very simple and abbreviated method of signalling which any man could learn in a few hours.
Now, as to the weapon. I believe there has been for the last two or three years a discussion at the War Office as to whether the men are to have swords or bayonets or a sort of hybrid weapon between the two. The result of this discussion is that at the present moment they have neither. I think this is a genuine cause of complaint on the part of the Yeomanry. The question of the places to which Yeomanry go for training is an important one. There are many places in the country which are absolutely unfitted for the Yeomanry—places in towns and populous districts, where it is impossible to teach them any scouting or reconnaissance—and I think it advisable that the Yeomanry should be taken away once in three years to some open country where they would have better opportunities of learning these services. I do not suppose they could be taken away oftener, as it would have a bad effect on recruiting. As to an advanced class for senior officers, that is a matter which I regard as of very great importance. One senior officer told me that he went to Aldershot last year with a view of making himself efficient, but was merely put through the same sort of training as the subalterns in his own regiment. I venture to think the discussion of these matters in your Lordships, House is extremely useful in calling attention to these details and eliciting the opinions of commanding officers and others. His Majesty's Government are at the present moment engaged in putting the whole forces of the country on a sound and satisfactory basis, and I think it is only fair to assume that the Yeomanry will not be left out.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I wish to say a word or two both with regard to the question of musketry instruction and inspection. As to the former, I feel sure the noble and gallant Lord will agree with me that the difficulty one often finds in persuading officers to join a Yeomanry regiment

1449
is not any lack of keenness on their part or lack of money—at any rate nowadays when the expenses of Yeomanry officers have been very much cut down—but it is that they are afraid they will not be able to give the necessary time to make themselves thoroughly efficient members of, and a credit to, their regiments. With regard to inspectors, I cannot claim to have been so unfortunate as one noble Lord who spoke just now, for I was inspected by four different Generals after only ten days training.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I heartily support the desirability of having shorter courses for officers and increased facilities for their getting at them. The difficulty Yeomanry colonels experience is in getting junior officers to join, and I think it is unreasonable to expect them to go down to Hythe for a month in addition to their training. I think they should be able to get a certificate at centres of musketry instruction in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is, as I say, impossible to expect one's junior officers to give up so much time as is required at present. A meeting of Yeomanry commanding officers last year unanimously agreed that some greater facilities ought to be given to field officers for training, and suggested that there should be a special course for these officers and that the course should not exceed a fortnight. As the noble and gallant Lord who initiated this discussion said, it is absurd to expect senior officers to go to school and receive similar instruction to that which is given to subalterns. I am quite sure, from the way the Yeomanry have been treated by the War Office during the last few years, that it is their intention to do what they can in its interests, and I hope they will meet the wishes of commanding officers on these points.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I do not think I have any right to complain of the tone of the debate this evening. On the other hand, I think I am fully entitled to congratulate myself on the references to the War Office and the amount of praise that has been showered upon us. I can assure
1450
noble Lords that we are most anxious to make the Yeomanry an efficient and useful force, if possible more efficient and useful than it is now. I welcome this discussion, for it is only by personal discussion with members of Yeomanry regiments that we are able to find oat these deficiencies, which, of course, cannot be so patent to our eyes as they are to the eyes of noble Lords who are themselves members of the Imperial Yeomanry. I welcome any debate raised on this subject by the noble and gallant Lord opposite, because I know full well that when he does start a debate that debate is certain to be rich in schemes of all sorts. I welcome these schemes; but I am sure the noble and gallant Lord would not expect that I should accept all of them offhand. If the schemes are subsequently adopted and are a success, naturally the noble and gallant Lord gets all the credit for them; but if they are not found to be a success, the noble and gallant Lord's existence is forgotten for the moment, and we get all the blame.
The first point that has been raised is the necessity for a steel weapon for the Imperial Yeomanry. We are in rather a difficult position as regards this. I confess I have been quite unable to discover in the Papers I have here the reason why some three years ago the bayonet was withdrawn from the Imperial Yeomanry. Still, the fact remains that that decision was come to, and we are now asked to reconsider the decision. I would remind your Lordships that there is considerable difference on this point even among officers of the Imperial Yeomanry. A few still cling to the idea that they would like to have a sword. Many colonels argue in favour of the bayonet; one distinguished officer has suggested a battle-axe; and others think they should have nothing at all. The greater weight of opinion, however, I believe leans towards the bayonet, and I will certainly see that the matter is most carefully gone into. I may, however, be allowed to sound a note of warning. A distinguished Yeomanry Officer, one of the first to go to South Africa, spoke to me this morning on this subject. He prefers that the present state of things should continue,

1451
and that the Yeomanry should be armed with the rifle and nothing else. He expressed the opinion that a bayonet is an uncomfortable thing for a mounted man to wear, and he said that his experience in South Africa was that generally the I Imperial Yeoman threw his bayonet; away at the first opportunity. It was, he says, sometimes found useful as a I picketing peg, or for cutting wire, but I to use it on his rifle was the last thing the Yeoman thought of. I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with us when we say there is a great deal to be said on both sides. I can only promise that I will ask those of my colleagues whose business it is to deal with this question of weapons to give it their early consideration.
The next point I turn to was that raised by the Marquess of Winchester as to the period of re-attestment. I discussed that question only this morning with some of my colleagues on the Army Council, and they promised to go into it at once. As to the question of inspection, the exact state of the case has, I think, been fully stated by my noble friend the Earl of Erroll, and I am glad to say that we hope in the early future to make arrangements for carrying out more effectually the inspection of the Imperial Yeomanry, taking especial note of the fact that there should be continuity of inspection year after year by the same officer, where possible. The next point raised was in regard to the training of the men in musketry. This is one of the most unsatisfactory things in connection with the training of the Yeomanry. In conversation this morning with the Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces, he informed me that he has in his mind a scheme which he hopes to work out with assistance from officers of the Imperial Yeomanry, and which, I hope, will prove a remedy for the present not at all satisfactory state of things.
As regards the training in musketry of officers and non-commissioned officers, the noble and gallant Lord has suggested that we should have local courses held in various parts of the country. Local courses for officers in some things are easy to arrange, and we are glad to arrange them. When noble Lords come
1452
forward, in the patriotic way my noble and gallant friend did last year by placing his house at our disposal to hold a course for the Imperial Yeomanry in Scotland, we are glad to avail ourselves of these opportunities. But a local course in musketry is a different thing. We have all the facilities to our hand at Hythe, and we think that the result of a course there is bound to be infinitely more advantageous for the individual officer than if carried out where there are not the same facilities. The course for officers of the Auxiliary Forces at Hythe has lately been very much simplified. We have knocked out a great many things that we teach officers of the Regular Army, on the ground that they are superfluous for officers of the Auxiliary Forces.
LOUD LOVAT: You have added to the length of your course.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, but we have taken out instruction in foreign rifles and one or two other things, and we concentrate a great deal of attention now on fire control. We are issuing Maxims to the Imperial Yeomanry. Thirty-eight have so far been issued, and we intend to issue two per regiment. I think, therefore, the time spent in the musketry course over the Maxim gun is not wasted. The noble and gallant Lord raised another point which I confess was new to me—the question of the senior officers' course at the school of musketry; but I shall be glad to see that it is inquired into. I hope, though I can give no pledge in the matter, that we shall be able to make an arrangement such as the noble and gallant Lord asks for, if senior officers come forward in sufficient numbers. I am afraid I cannot go into the question of organisation in any great detail. The Committee of Imperial Defence is now considering the whole question of the employment of the Auxiliary Forces in time of war, and, pending any decision on their part, I am afraid I cannot enter at length into the questions on that head raised by my noble and gallant friend. With regard, however, to training itself, a new manual is in proof. It has been prepared very carefully by a committee of

1453
distinguished officers, including Lord Chesham, and I hope it will satisfy all the demands that will be made upon it. The question, of staff officers is also one on which I cannot say very much, partly for the reason that the work of this force and; the organisation of the staff is under; consideration, and partly because we are to have a debate in the near future upon this question of the staff and I should be; unwilling to anticipate the opportunity we shall then have of dealing with this subject at greater length.
As regards signalling, we are every bit as anxious as noble Lords are that the Yeomen should become efficient signallers, but I think your Lordships will see that it is quite impossible for us to lower the present standard. I am quite certain, that the suggestion of my noble and a gallant friend behind me could be adopted,; and a simpler system of signalling drawn up which would be very useful for the Imperial Yeomanry to use among them I selves. But in war time it would be necessary for the Yeomanry signallers to take their part as signallers of the whole Army, and to have a large number of signallers who had been trained only in an elementary course and were unable to communicate with signallers drawn from the rest of the Army would obviously not be of much use. I hope the noble and gallant Lords do not think the attainment of the standard we desire is absolutely impossible. It is the same standard that we ask for from the Regular Army and from the Volunteers. I may be told that the Volunteers have more time at I their disposal for these things, but the fact remains that many corps of Volunteers are able to attain to a standard in signalling which is quite as high as, and in some cases higher, than that attained by some regiments of the Regular Army. I hope the day will not be far distant when the Yeomanry will be able to reach the same standard.
With the noble and gallant Lord's remarks on the subject of transport I think it is unnecessary for me to deal, as this subject has already been dealt with by Lord Harris. We give all the assistance we can to regiments of Imperial Yeomanry in time of peace, and each unit is supposed to have a
1454
scheme in existence providing a full complement of vehicles and horses for its requirements in time of war. The officers of the Imperial Yeomanry are permitted to attend a course in Army Service Corps work. They receive allowances while there and travelling expanses, and I hope; that the amount of help they get from the War Office may enable them to quality themselves, at any rate to be useful and of assistance to us in formulating any transport arrangements that may be necessary in home dafence, I can assure your Lordships that the noble and gallant Lord opposite is a little bashful as regards the force he belongs to. It is a good deal more efficient than would be gathered from his speech. We are satisfied with the progress that has been made since the great Yeomanry movement took root, and we earnestly hope that the efficiency which the force has reached may be continued and even exceeded, for we are confident the Yeomanry are a useful portion of the defence forces of the country.

THE RESERVATION OF THE COASTING TRADE.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the practice of other maritime countries reserving what is termed their coastwise trade to vessels of their own nationality, and to refer to certain recommendations and Resolutions on this subject; to ask what has been the nature of the representations of His Majesty's Government to the United States Government respecting the proposed application to the Philippine Islands of the coastwise laws of the United States; also, whether the United States Government have as yet forwarded any definite reply to the representations referred to.
In June of last year I brought this matter before your Lordships, and quoted the recommendation of the Subsidies Committee and the Resolution adopted at the Conference of Colonial Premiers, to the effect that the coastal trade of Great Britain and the trade with her
colonies and possessions should be reserved to British ships or to ships of those countries who throw open the trade

1455
between their different ports to our ships. I gave the views of Sir Robert Giffen, a recognised authority, that this would mean an increase of nine per cent, in the trade of British ships. I do not know the source of his information, but my noble friend representing the Beard of Trade stated that the question practically affected Russia and the United States alone. I venture to say that if he will refer to the Report of the Subsidies Committee it will tell another story. Though the Beard of Trade received my representations in a very lukewarm manner, despite the authorities supporting me, I was glad to find that Sir Robert Giffen's estimate of gain to British ships did not seem very far wrong. I had also the satisfaction of being accorded an assurance by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that the matter would not be lost sight of.
I was told both by him and by my noble friend representing the Board of Trade that this important question was connected with the larger question of the fiscal policy, and therefore, my Lords, it seems clear to me that if the representations which the noble Marquess has made to the United States Government are in the nature of intercession on behalf of British ships and British trade, the Government have now made the first move in altering a policy which has proved so detrimental to the shipping trade of this country. I am aware that a resolution as to the reservation of the coastwise trade was carried by a large majority at the annual meeting of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, and it is significant that the resolution which followed and which was agreed to at that meeting was one calling the attention of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the fact that British shipping would be excluded from July next from the carrying trade between the Philippines and the United States; the consequence being that a large amount of British shipping will from that date be shut out from an important trade.
His Majesty's Government were respectfully requested to make suitable representations to the United States of America upon the subject. All those who are connected with or have that
1456
interest in shipping which they should will be gratified at the fact that His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has responded to the appeal of the shipowners in this matter. I gather from his preliminary reply to the Secretary of the Chamber of Shipping that the United States authorities are postponing making the change they contemplate for twelve months. I am far from being alone in my desire to know the character of the representations which have been officially made to the United States Government on this vitally important subject. It seems to me to constitute a precedent which may have far-reaching results and will justify similar representations being made to other maritime Powers reserving their coastwise trade to their own ships.
I also hope that it may be a step in the direction of British ships being eventually manned by our own subjects, or at least of ensuring that aliens shall not be permitted to command or officer British vessels. It is really appalling to think that in British sailing vessels the number of aliens outnumbers the number of our own subjects serving in them. Some of our vessels seem to be alien in everything but in name. I trust that the noble Marquess representing His Majesty's Government may be able to give us some further information on the representations he has made to the United States Government, and that they will prove to be a forerunner towards British ships being allowed a fair field in all trades. We extend this fair field to the ships of all maritime nations, and we have a right to expect other nations to extend the same privilege to our ships.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the Resolution of the Conference of Colonial Premiers, to which the noble Lord alluded, has been referred to the Colonial Governments for their opinions. We have received some but not all of their replies, and these replies vary very much in their tenor. Some of the Colonial Governments are entirely opposed to the idea of excluding foreign vessels from coastwise trade. Others, on the contrary, desired, or intended, to do so. The House of Commons Shipping Subsidies Committee made the suggestion that foreign vessels frequenting British

1457
ports should be made subject to the same Board of Trade regulations as British vessels, and we have quite lately appointed a Committee for the purpose of inquiring into that subject. As to the general question which the noble Lord has raised there can be no doubt that the present system under which certain Powers are allowed free access to our coastwise trade while they deny access to their coasting trade to British vessels is an unfair one, and that it operates most disadvantageously to this country. Of course the extent of the injustice is increased when we call to mind that what we speak of in this connection as coasting trade does not mean coasting trade between one port on the seaboard of the British islands to another port on the same seaboard, but means what can be more properly described as Imperial trade—trade, I mean, which passes between, say, the Port of London and an Australian seaport, or, taking the case of a Foreign Power, such trade as that which passes, let us say, between New York and San Francisco, or between a Baltic port and Vladivostok.
While I entirely realize the injustice done to our commerce by its exclusion from certain portions of the coasting trade of other Powers, I think we must be careful not to exaggerate the extent of the grievance, because it is not the case that that exclusion is by any means general or universal. Out of the seven Powers which do a large amount of coasting trade four—Germany, Holland, Denmark, and Portugal—admit our vessels freely to their coasting trade. France does the same with the exception of Algerian trade, which is specially reserved. There are only two considerable Powers—Russia and the United States—which exclude us altogether. It is necessary to bear in mind when you speak of the possibility of retaliatory action on these Powers that they are, as it happens, the very Powers which make least use of our coasting trade and which consequently afford the smallest target for reprisals. Indeed, it is necessary to remember that the whole foreign participation in our coasting trade is relatively insignificant. Of our coasting trade in the narrower sense of the word—that which passes along the coasts of the United Kingdom—99 per cent. of the whole is already in British hands. Of the larger coasting trade which we are discussing this evening 88 per cent. is in
1458
British hands, and 12 per cent. only in the hands of foreigners. The total coasting trade amounts to 38,000,000 tons, of which 33,000,000 tons are in British hands. Therefore the 12 per cent. in foreign hands represents 5,000,000 tons. I do not say that that is an amount which can be dismissed as of no importance; but many matters have to be considered before we can entertain the idea of restricting the conditions under which that proportion of our coasting trade is carried by foreign vessels.
It is obvious that if we were to exclude foreigners from access to our coasting trade altogether we should find ourselves liable to reprisals at the hands of those countries which do at present admit us. That would be a serious matter. We should also have to anticipate that those foreign vessels which we exclude from our trade would reappear somewhere else in the guise of competitors with British vessels. Besides that we should certainly have to think twice before we took any steps which might have the effect of interfering with what is known as the entrepôt trade of this country. Large quantities of goods come here for re-export to other countries. It is obvious that if facilities of access were denied to trade of that character the result might be to drive it to the ports and emporiums of foreign Powers. I mention these considerations because I think it necessary to bear in mind that in matters of this kind it is necessary to proceed with great caution, and with an anticipation of the remoter results which might follow from the adoption of hasty or ill-considered steps. Moreover, this question is intimately connected with the larger and more difficult question of the fiscal problem, which we have frequently debated in this House, and which we cannot be expected to deal with in a fragmentary manner. I am afraid, therefore, that, though there is a grievance, I cannot hold out to the noble Lord any prospects of our immediately adopting the steps of which he is, I understand, in favour.
In answer to his specific Question with regard to the treatment of British commerce in the Philippine Islands, I have to say that in 1903 a Bill was introduced in Congress under which the trade passing between the United States and the

1459
Philippine Islands was declared to be coastwise trade, and under which foreign vessels were denied participation in that trade. That restriction seemed to us on the face of it inconsistent with certain declarations which had been made by the United States Government at the time when the treaty of peace was entered into between Spain and the United States. We desired our representative to call the attention of the United States Government to the matter and to point out the effects of the restriction on the commerce of this country. These discussions are still proceeding, and I do not think it would be for the public interest that I should enter into details with regard to them. The Bill to which I referred just now was, however, altered during its passage through Congress, and in the shape in which it ultimately became law at the beginning of the year it is laid down that the application of the new law to the trade of the United States and the Philippines shall not come into effect until 1906. There is, therefore, time to consider the matter. It is certainly one which deserves and shall receive the attention of the Government.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I am afraid the sparse attendance on these Benches at the present moment rather points to the fact that your Lordships' House hardly realises the great importance of the question raised by the noble Lord. I only rise to say that I value the statement of the noble Marquess and the decision arrived at. There is very little doubt that the position of foreign vessels and our coastwise trade is of the greatest possible importance. It is of enormous importance to the entrepôt trade of the country, and anything that affected this question might be full of disaster to the country. I am, therefore, glad that the noble Marquess has not given countenance to the proposals of the noble Lord. What we have to fear in dealing with these questions is the prospect of serious reprisals against our trade; and I hope that the point will be considered by His Majesty's Government when the Report of the Committee is presented.
House adjourned at live minutes past Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.