Lords Sitting of 6 July 1908

VISCOUNT BOYNE.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Gustavus William, Viscount Boyne in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—London County Council (Money).
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—South-West Suburban Water.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Blackburn Corporation Bill; Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Bill.—Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to.
Bills read 2a accordingly.
Finchley Urban District Council Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Motherwell Burgh Extension, etc., Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Blackburn Corporation Bill.—Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Liverpool Corporation (General Powers) Bill.—Committed.
Widnes Corporation Bill.—The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; The Orders made on Monday and Wednesday last discharged and Bill committed.
Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Bristol Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.
North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered and agreed to.
Upton Town Hall Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Blaydon and Ryton Water (Transfer) Bill; Bromley and Crays Gas Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
London and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.].—King's Consent and Consent of the Prince of Wales, signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.—Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. [No. 130.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].—House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional. Order (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]; Troon (Loch Bradan) Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a according to order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill.—Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Order Confirmation Bill.—Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill; Blackburn Corporation Bill; River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.].—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [H.L.]—(Swansea Orders, No. 1 and No. 2), and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Public Offices Sites (Extension) Bill, the Blackburn Corporation Bill, and the River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 19. (1908).
  Notes exchanged between the United Kingdom and Sweden and Norway, relative to the Agreement of 12th July, 1881, for the mutual relief of distressed seamen, November, 1907—May, 1908.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
  Return giving particulars of cases in which persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners
  1148
  during the quarter ended 31st March, 1908.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return of advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of October, 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1907; together with statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on 31st December, 1907, and the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those Liabilities at that date.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Thirteenth Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the proceedings of the registrars under the Building Societies Acts, with an abstract of the annual accounts and statements of societies for the year 1907: Part I. Report.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SCHEMES, INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES AND TRADE UNIONS.
  Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for the year ended 31st December, 1907. Part A.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.] POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.] STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Select Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bills do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Committee Room A., upon Wednesday next, at Two o'clock, as proposed by this House.
LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 122).
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL (No. 123).
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a, and to be printed.
INCEST BILL (No. 124.) POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL (No. 125). POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL (No. 126). SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL (No. 127). POLLING DISTRICTS AND REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 128).
Brought from the Commons and read 1a, and to be printed.
LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 14th instant. [No. 129]

MISSING BRITISH SHIPS.
LORD MUSKEERY LORD MUSKEERY rose "To call attention to the fact that the Board of Trade have not ordered formal investigations into the circumstances attending the losses of the missing steamers "Neptune" and "Grindon Hall"; to ask the reason, or reasons, for this; whether a preliminary inquiry has been held in regard to the "Neptune," and, if so, by whom; and why, in the case of the "Grindon Hall," a preliminary inquiry was conducted in private by the Cardiff Stipendiary, assisted by a nautical assessor, instead of, as usual, by the Collector of Customs: also, to move 'That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in every case where a British ship is posted as missing and given up as lost, a public investigation should, when practicable, be ordered by the Board of Trade in order, if possible, to elicit any material facts which might tend to throw light on the probable cause of the disaster.'"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the matter to which my Notice refers is one of serious moment, and well worthy of your Lordships' careful consideration. The tragedy of a missing
1150
ship and the unknown fate of her crew is, unfortunately, not uncommon, and it is an occurrence which we all deplore when we hear of it. In justice to the men who have gone to their doom in such a way, and, even more so, in justice to the widows, orphans, or other dependants they may have left behind, it is our bounden duty to cause public investigation into such disasters. We should probe matters to the bottom in order that we may assure ourselves that every possible safeguard was adopted on the sailing of the vessel, and that she was in a thoroughly seaworthy condition previous to her departure on her ill-fated voyage.
The Merchant Shipping Act provides us with all the necessary machinery for this, and a very large amount of public money is expended annually in investigating casualties to British merchant ships. A disaster to a merchant ship is a matter of public interest. Safety of life at sea is a question which should concern us all. If it is necessary that a formal public investigation—commonly known as a Board of Trade inquiry—should be held into a case of stranding or of collision, how much more is it necessary that a similar investigation should be held openly and publicly when a British ship is missing with all her crew? A public inquiry is necessary in such a case, if only for the purpose of establishing public confidence and allaying what might be most unjustifiable suspicions and misapprehensions certain to arise in the case of missing ships.
Yet I am astonished so find that the Board of Trade look at matters from quite a different standpoint. If a ship runs ashore, and there is a chance that an unfortunate captain or an officer may be implicated and punished, a formal investigation is speedily ordered and proceeded with. But evidently missing ships receive by no means the same zealous attention at the hands of the Board of Trade. In their case all that seems to be necessary is a preliminary inquiry conducted in private by somebody nominated for the purpose by the Board of Trade. Usually it is the Collector of Customs, who can hardly be deemed a competent judge of nautical affairs. We are denied an investigation in open Court,

1151
where all the witnesses obtainable who can give material evidence can be called and can be subjected to that searching cross-examination which is likely to lead to elucidating doubtful circumstance and eliciting material facts, which would enable the Court to arrive at something approaching a definite conclusion as to the probable course of the disaster. It is only by cross-examination that the veracity of a witness and the worth his evidence is to be properly tested, and preliminary inquiries, where ex parte statements only are to be obtained, are absolutely worthless.
The first case which I desire to bring to your Lordships' notice is that of the steamer "Neptune," which left port on 1st January last, and has never since been heard of. No public inquiry has been held into this disaster, even though I understand that the Imperial Merchant Service Guild have informed the Board of Trade that they feel that the matter is one which demands thorough inquiry, and so far as I can gather, the Marine Engineer's Association representing the certificated engineers of this country, are of the same opinion. The Board of Trade, in reply to the Guild, state that, from the information before them concerning the "Neptune," they do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a formal inquiry, but that they would be prepared to reconsider their decision should any fresh facts of importance be brought to their notice. But it is the clear business of the Board of Trade itself to elicit as many facts as possible in connection with shipping casualties, and my contention is that they cannot do so without a public investigation and without cross-examination of the various witnesses who are able to give any evidence bearing on the case.
The information supplied to the Board of Trade as a result of the private preliminary inquiry is, I presume, carefully pigeon-holed, and the public are absolutely in the dark as to any details connected with the "Neptune" at the time she sailed on what proved to be her last voyage. Her captain did not, I believe, hold a Board of Trade certificate, though I do not mention this as having anything to do with the
1152
casualty. I have, however, seen letters from a near relation of one of the leading members of the crew of the "Neptune," who refers to different matters which seem to warrant thorough investigation, if only, as I have said before, for the purpose of quieting what may be unnecessary and unjust suspicion.
The next case referred to in my notice is the loss of the "Grindon Hall," a large steamer of the turret type, carrying over 5,000 tons of cargo, her crew consisting of twenty-six hands all told. She left the port of Sulina for Glasgow on 4th December last, and has not since been heard of. One would have thought that a public investigation into this disaster would be ordered as a matter of course. But this was not so. Whether the pressure which had been brought to bear upon the Board of Trade in connection with the absence of a public inquiry into the loss of the "Neptune" accounts for it, I cannot say, but it seems somewhat curious that in the case of the "Grindon Hall," which came on at a later date, the Board of Trade adopted a very unusual course. The general practice is for the preliminary inquiry to be held before the Collector of Customs, but in this case of the "Grindon Hall" the Board of Trade specially nominated the stipendiary magistrate at Cardiff, assisted by Captain W. B. Bigley as a nautical assessor, to conduct the preliminary inquiry.
The solicitor for the Board of Trade attended this preliminary inquiry, and so did the solicitor for the owners of the steamer. Various witnesses also attended for the purpose of giving evidence. But, it the outset of the proceedings, the stipendiary cleared the Court, stating that it was only a preliminary inquiry, and the shorthand writer was alone allowed to remain in his official capacity as shorthand writer to the Board of Trade. On the solicitor for the owners of the steamer inquiring whether he was to leave the Court too, the stipendiary remarked: "Certainly." The proceedings were then conducted in private.
Another circumstance that is also most unusual is that the Board of Trade have now issued a full Report of the conclusions of this preliminary inquiry for the information of the public, and I should

1153
like to know why they have done so in this case and not in the case of the "Neptune." Why should one disaster be dealt with differently from another, when information of public interest is published by the Board of Trade? Furthermore, it is a most unjust, and a highly improper course, that a private investigation should be held where responsible parties are not allowed the right of legal representation, when the results of this inquiry are to be issued by the Board of Trade, and when quite possibly they may contain opinions and allegations which might have been proved to have been without foundation had there been proper representation of the different interests at the inquiry itself.
To show your Lordships how unfairly the practice operates, I find in the Report of this inquiry that, on the testimony of certain witnesses, important statements as to the loading of the ship said to have been made by the unfortunate captain of the "Grindon Hall" are stated to have been apparently inaccurate. In fact, the captain to all intents and purposes is branded as a perjurer and held responsible for the loss of his own life and the lives of his crew in sailing from Sulina with his cargo not stowed in accordance with the declaration he made before the British Consul: "That it had been stowed in accordance with Section 454 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894." I say that it is an outrage that secret investigations may be held into terrible disasters of this kind, where representation is denied the parties concerned, and where, as a result of the inquiry, the Board of Trade may issue a Report of its opinions which drag in the mire the good names of men who have lost their lives in an honourable calling.
I make no charges or insinuations whatever against anybody connected with the ship—whether builders, owners, stevedores, or crew; but I do earnestly contend that as this is a matter which concerns the public it is a public inquiry only which will satisfy us in like matters. I have seen letters from shipmasters who have taken great interest in this "Grindon Hall" case, knowing a good deal about it. I do not think it right to bring their views forward, as under the circumstances it would be
1154
improper to do so. But there is one very important fact with which all seamen are familiar, and that is the extreme difficulty of launching boats from turret-built vessels in times of emergency when heavy weather prevails. This is a point which was well worthy of the attention of the gentlemen who conducted the preliminary inquiry, but, so far as I can judge from their Report, it seems to have been entirely neglected by them. It is well-known amongst seamen that in heavy weather a life-boat when launched, is apt to get dashed on to what is sometimes called the "boat-deck" or turtle back, thereby, perhaps, causing irretrievable damage to the boat. It seemes that a life-boat of the "Grindon Hall" was picked up at sea, and from its condition as described in the Report it is not improbable that the damage was caused in the manner to which I have referred. I may call this speculation founded on what is an undoubted fact in launching boats in heavy weather from turret-built ships. However, this is a side issue upon which I need no dwell further.
What I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that catastrophes such as those of the "Neptune" and the "Grindon Hall" are allowed to be passed by without any public investigation, and that in the case of the "Grindon Hall" the procedure followed by the Board of Trade was of a very unfortunate character. Why there should be any need for secrecy in connection with these inquiries I cannot understand. Surely it is not the desire of the Board of Trade to conceal anything, or to rely upon preliminary inquiries, which, obviously, are thoroughly unsatisfactory from a public point of view. The merchant mariners of this country—and I have given your Lordships the names of two of their great representative associations—are wholly justified in their contention that the loss of a missing ship is of serious import to all seafarers, and a matter which demands public investigation. To avoid this is to court hostile criticism and suspicion, for which, possibly, there is no foundation whatever. The opinion expressed by an eminent authority, Judge Backhouse, President of the New South Wales Court of Marine

1155
Inquiry, was that a full public inquiry should be held in all cases of marine disasters, however trivial.
I earnestly hope that your Lordships will favour me with your support in this matter, and agree to my Motion that in every case where it is at all practicable the loss of a missing ship should be matter for a formal investigation to be held in open Court, and conducted in accordance with the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act which fully provide for it. We cannot be too solicitous about our sailors or about their safety. They undertake risks and perils of quite an exceptional character, and they are performing a national service in bringing our food supplies to this country. When, as in the case of the "Grindon Hall," they lose their lives in this vitally important work, or in ships engaged in other branches of our commerce, it is for His Majesty's Government to avail themselves of their powers, and to endeavour to find out in some satisfactory and open way whether every human precaution had been taken to ensure the safety of the men whose lives had been lost in such a sad and tragic manner. I beg to submit the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in every case where a British ship is posted as missing and given up as lost, a public investigation should, when practicable, be ordered by the Board of Trade in order, if possible, to elicit any material facts which might tend to throw light on the probable cause of the disaster."—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that the Board of Trade are fully sensible of the great responsibility which rests upon them to investigate most thoroughly any such disasters as the two which form the subject of the noble Lord's question. I think I had, perhaps, better explain to the House the course which is adopted in these cases.
By the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 the Board of Trade are empowered to hold an inquiry in the case of the loss of any British ship, and a preliminary investigation may be held by an inspecting
1156
officer of the Coastguard, a chief officer of Customs, or by any persons appointed for the purpose by the Board of Trade. The practice is that this preliminary inquiry is held, and if there is any suspicion that anything could be brought home to any one as being the cause of the loss of the vessel, or if the result of the inquiry is to show that there is a tittle of evidence to be put before a Court of law, a further public inquiry before a Court of summary jurisdiction invariably takes place.
In these two cases preliminary inquiries were held. In the case of the "Neptune," it was held by the chief Customs officers of Dundee and Liverpool, and the purport of their report was that there was no evidence of any sort to bring before a judicial inquiry. In the case of the "Grindon Hall," a similar inquiry was held by Mr. Lewis, the stipendiary magistrate at Cardiff, with Captain Bigley as an assessor; and the result of that inquiry, as the noble Lord has pointed out, is contained in the Report which has been published by the Board of Trade. This Report was published in accordance with the usual practice, and I think a perusal of the Report will show that there was no evidence of any sort to bring before a Court of Law. At one time it was the practice to hold a judcial inquiry in every case; but on many occasions it was found that there was no evidence of any sort to bring before the Court, and much money, time, and trouble were absolutely wasted. I can assure the House again that these preliminary inquiries are held most carefully, and that if there is a tittle of evidence to bring before a Court the further inquiry is invariably held. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Motion, and that this matter will be left, as it has been in the past, to be dealt with at the discretion of the President of the Board of Trade.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, whenever the humblest landsman belonging to this country loses his life by an unfortunate sudden death he is entitled to a public coroner's inquest, and the matter is carefully gone into. Here is a case in which twenty-six seamen have disappeared, yet no public inquiry is to be held at all concerning the disaster. I will, with the permission of your Lordships,

1157
read a short summary of the investigation concerning the "Grindon Hall" as it appeared n the July number of the Nautical Magazine, which reached me this afternoon. It is said that—
"The Court, after taking evidence, are of opinion that the vessel must have foundered through having insufficient stability as laden. In all other respects she was proved to have been in good and seaworthy condition, but she was not loaded in accordance with the plan of loading approved by the Board of Trade on the 25th November, 1905, or in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 18 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, or in accordance with the regulations made by the Board of Trade under the provisions of Section 53 of the said Act."
The law has been broken, 26 lives have been lost, and yet there is to be no public inquiry! I do not at all know what the result of a public inquiry might be, but I do not believe that masters and officers of ships are in the habit either of overloading their ships or of going to sea with their cargo improperly stoued unless pressure is put upon them by the owners, either to carry more cargo or to hurry their ship along to save time. For these reasons I think that the circumstances should be threshed out in some way in public. A private inquiry is no answer to loss of life, and I hope the Board of Trade will reconsider their intention not to hold any further inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess that so far as the conversation has gone I do not think your Lordships can be quite satisfied with the answer which has been given to the question of my noble friend. I entirely share the view of the noble Lord who has just sat down that these secret inquiries are of very doubtful expediency. If the thing is fit for an inquiry at all it is far better that the inquiry should be public in its character, and the analogy which he has drawn between an accident resulting in loss of life at sea and one resulting in loss of life on land seems to me a perfectly fair and true analogy. If life is lost by an accident on land in this country there is, and must always be, a public inquiry; no exception whatever is permitted by the law. However lacking the evidence may turn out to be, there must be a coroner's inquest; and I do not see why in a serious loss of life
1158
at sea there should not be a similar public inquiry.
The special case of the "Grindon Hall" is that the inquiry which was held was a secret inquiry. If it had remained secret there might have been something to be said for it; but, although the inquiry was conducted in private, although the interested parties were not allowed to be represented, the solicitor for the owners having been excluded from the room, the Board of Trade afterwards published the result of the inquiry. I do not wish to pronounce a definite and final opinion, but, on the face of it, that appears to me a very unfair proceeding. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Board of Trade said that the result of the inquiry was to show that there was no evidence against anybody, but I think he is inaccurate in that respect, because I hold the report of the inquiry in my hand, and this is what is stated—
"In the notice delivered by the master to the Consular officer at Sulina on the day he sailed, he stated that he had 200 tons of cargo in bags in the hold. In the same notice he also stated that the vessel had been loaded in accordance with the Board of Trade letter dated 25th November. According, however to the affidavits of the stevedore, and the testimony of Captain Beck and another, the master's statements, both as to bagging and as to loading in accordance with the Board of Trade instructions, appear to have been inaccurate."
I am not quite sure whether the Court found that the statement was proved—I do not think they did—but, at any rate, a statement was made that the master, whose life was lost in the accident, was responsible for an action contrary to law and which presumably may be taken to have been partly the cause of what happened.
I do not think it is right or proper that, having held an inquiry from which the representatives of the parties were excluded, the Board of Trade should publish a Report gravely incriminating one of the parties. If, as Lord Hamilton says, in cases where a preliminary inquiry reveals something wrong a public inquiry always follows, then I want to know why a public inquiry did not follow in this case. I am almost certain that the noble Earl who leads the House will express his sympathy with the view put forward by Lord Muskerry, and, if he does

1159
I hope my noble friend will not persist in his Motion. But if the noble Earl does not, then I think my noble friend's Motion will be justified.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I do not profess to be competent to enter into the details concerning the loss of these two ships, but as a humble Member of your Lordship's House, and one of the general public, I think I am as qualified as any man in the street might be to express an opinion with, regard to the Motion of the noble Lord, that it is desirable, in every case where a British ship is posted as missing and given up as lost, that a public investigation should, where practicable, be ordered by the Board of Trade, in order to elicit, if possible, any material facts which might tend to throw light on the probable cause of the disaster.
The seafaring population of this country is the backbone of our protection. We have to rely solely upon the sailors of the country, not only for naval protection, but for our very food. Therefore, their well-being is a matter of the most vital importance to this country. We have to consider how to make these men contented, feeling that they are protected by Parliament, and that they can go upon these ships without the knowledge that their lives might be sacrificed through the negligence, if not through the wickedness, of the owners of these vessels. That is the point, and what I wish to know is, are the Board of Trade taking that view of the question or not? If they realise that the sailors of this country must be protected, and that the British public will insist upon it if once they know that they are not protected, then I say they are doing right. But if they are for one moment allowing the owners, or money, or wealth, or influence to have anything to say to the lives of the sailors, they are on the wrong line, and they will know it soon enough; for if there comes forward a man with the power of speech, able to address large audiences and to tell them that the Board of Trade are considering the interests of rich men and not the interests of poor men, then those at present in office will not sit long on the benches of power.
1160
I do not say one thing or the other; but I do say this with emphasis, that to the ordinary man in the street the answer that has been given by the noble Lord who represents the Government shows quite clearly that the Board of Trade are thinking much more about the expense of investigations than of the lives of the men. If that idea once gets possession of the public, woe betide any Government that permits it. A very true analogy was given by Lord Ellenborough—that of an accidental death on land. That is only the case of one individual, but is it not much more important that we should insist upon an open inquiry in the case of the loss of vessels with many hands? It appears to me that the Board of Trade have not taken the question of the well-being of our seafaring population sufficiently seriously.
Before sitting down I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Muskerry, who has, by his able and persistent conduct in this House on behalf of the sailors of the mercantile marine, given rise to the feeling throughout the country that it is your Lordships' House which, has especially the interests of the sailor at heart. I thank him for it. I am proud that this House should take the sailor under its care, and I hope that the noble Lord's Motion will be passed. Money, my Lords, ought not to come into consideration at all. It is a question of the lives of our seamen; it is a question of the food of this country; it is a question of our very existence from day to day; and I, therefore, hope your Lordships will support the Motion of my noble friend.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am afraid that I am not acquainted with the special circumstances of the two cases which have been brought before the House by the noble Lord. I shall have a word to say in a moment about the noble Earl who has just sat down; but, in the meantime, I am in agreement with him as to the service which the noble Lord opposite does, and has for so long done, in bringing cases affecting the comfort and lives of the sailors of the mercantile marine before your Lordships' House, backed by a knowledge in which in this respect he has no equal in this Assembly.

1161
The noble Earl who has just sat down had rather detracted attention from the facts of the case by an outburst of rhetoric. I have no objection to the noble Earl assuming an exceedingly high standard, both of conduct and morality. We all greatly respect the noble Earl. But I do not think that that entitles him to bring against those who represent a public department vague, reckless, and, as I believe, absolutely unfounded charges of indifference to the lives of our seamen. I protest very strongly against such language as that. It does not help the noble Earl's case. The case is one, I admit, well worthy of consideration. It was set before us in a very moderate manner by Lord Muskerry, by the noble Lord who followed him, and by the noble Marquess on the front bench opposite, who, having been himself at the Board of Trade, speaks on this subject with authority. I shall, therefore, say no more with regard to the noble Earl on the cross benches.
I quite admit that the views which have been expressed by the noble Lords opposite are worthy of close examination. It may be, I think, that either one of two courses ought to be taken. If a private inquiry is held in such cases as this it should, as the noble Marquess has said, remain private. I think there is much to be said for that view, and I have no doubt my noble friend behind me will represent it to the Board of Trade. On the other hand, I can conceive that there would be very great difficulty, in cases where an accident had occurred from which unhappily nobody had survived, in carrying out a public judicial inquiry. For such an inquiry you must have real evidence, and I take it that the analogy upon which it is possible to go is that in the case, for instance, of a railway accident. An inquest may be held, and is held, of course, upon the victims of the accident; but at the same time it may be desirable in some cases to hold an inquiry into the causes of the accident, not always of a public character, at which language can be used which could not be used by those who have to give evidence on oath.
I take it that if a public inquiry had been held in this case nobody would have been there to give what would
1162
be considered evidence in a Court of law, and I am given to understand that in past times these inquiries have been instituted and have been found to be absolutely nugatory from that fact. The inquiry has been open, but nothing in the nature of real evidence has been forthcoming, and it has had to be closed with an expression of regret. On the other point, as to private inquiries at which statements are made which are necessarily of a purely conjectural character, but, at the same time, may cause pain to the relatives of those who lost their lives in the unhappy accident—it is matter for close consideration whether those charges, if charges they be, should in any sense be made public, and my noble friend behind me will no doubt see that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade is informed of the strong opinions on this point which have been expressed by noble Lords opposite.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I only intervene as a result of what the noble Lord has just said. I confess I am a little disturbed at finding that the report of such an inquiry as this, which ended in the conviction in the minds of those conducting the inquiry that some great irregularity, if not illegality, had been committed, and which prima facie will reflect upon the owners or charterers of the vessel as the case may be, is published, notwithstanding the fact that the solicitor representing the owner of the vessel had been excluded from the inquiry. I rather think the noble Earl himself feels that, too; and therefore I do not wish to enforce it further. I presume they had some evidence. At all events, if there is enough evidence to justify the examining officers coming to a particular conclusion, it ought to be made known what was the nature of the evidence adduced, because it may involve a very grave reflection upon the owners, the charterers, or the merchants, whoever it may be, at whose instance the vessel was sent to sea.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I shall, of course, be guided by my noble friend on the Front Opposition Bench as to whether or not I shall divide on

1163
my Motion. But I should like to call attention to the fact that nothing whatever has been said as to the case of the "Neptune." We do not know how many lives were lost in that vessel. There was a preliminary inquiry, but that is all we have heard. It often happens that coroners' inquests have no evidence placed before them, but they are always held. Why should there not be a public inquiry also in every case where a vessel is lost? [The noble Lord here consulted Lord SALISBURY.] In the circumstances, my Lords, I will not press my Motion to a division.
Motion, by leave, withrdawn.

HORSES FOR THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to call attention to the recent Report of the Royal Commission on Horse-breeding and to the question of the provision of horses for military purposes, and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length this afternoon in introducing the subject of which I have given notice. It is really a corollary of a debate which took place in your Lordships' House two years ago, when several noble Lords had the opportunity of placing their views at some length before the House. The debate on that occasion, I think it is not exaggerating to say, displayed a serious state of affairs, and a state of affairs of which there has been no active amelioration since that date, though I am the first to admit that something has been done in the field of inquiry.
Shortly after the debate to which I refer, the noble Earl opposite, the President of the Board of Agriculture, was good enough to summon a number of those of us who are interested in this subject to a conference at the Board of Agriculture—a conference which, I think, was of very great educational value. A number of other conferences have also taken place. There was one at the United Service Institution, there have been some, I think, at the military headquarters, and there was one about ten days ago following upon a banquet of a club interested in military matters and to which many of your Lordships belong. The
1164
views, therefore, of very many people have been placed before the Government, and I do not intend to repeat those views at any great length. My purpose this afternoon is to ask His Majesty's Government whether, with the expert knowledge now at their command, they intend to take any definite action in the immediate future. One cannot help feeling that during the last two years the position of affairs has become much more serious. Two breeding seasons have been lost, but I sincerely hope that we are not going to lose a third.
At one of the conferences to which I have referred a distinguished officer from the War Office was good enough to attend and to tell us the latest mobilisation requirements of the Army in the matter of horses. This officer told us that in order to mobilise all our troops we required 173,000 horses. Of this number 59,000 are required for the cavalry, and 17,000 for the Reserve. The wastage of war will probably cause a rehorsing in six months, and at the end of the year, therefore, there will have been taken 180,000 horses for the cavalry alone. The resouces of the United Kingdom are roughly 1,500,000 horses; but only 150,000 of these are fit for cavalry use. Therefore in this country at present we have 30,000 fewer horses than we should require in the first year of a war. That is serious enough, but the position is getting worse, for the birth-rate is decreasing.
In England, according to the latest figures which I have been able to obtain, there were 10,000 fewer foals in 1906 than in 1905. In Ireland there were 1,450 fewer brood mares and 1,250 fewer recreation horses, as a result of a comparison of those two years; and I was surprised and horrified to hear a distinguished ex-Governor of an Australian Colony state at one of the conferences to which I have referred, that the same tale of decrease is to be told in respect of Australia and Canada; so that we are becoming more and more dependent on the foreigner and less and less on ourselves. But at the same time our export of horses shows an increase. In 1904, we exported only 32,955 horses, but in 1906 we exported 60,400; and your Lordships will, of course, realise that foreign buyers do not come to

1165
England to buy our worst horses or our average horses, but our best. Whereas in 1904 we had in this country 208,000 horses under a year old, in 1907 there were but 184,000, and in Ireland there has been a decrease of 11,500 horses in three years.
Your Lordships will remember the difficulties which this country experienced in obtaining horses for the South African war. If I remember rightly, we required for that war, roughly, half a million horses, and we had the markets of the world open to us. We cannot lay down as a fact that in any future war in which we may be engaged we shall find similar facilities for the supply of the horses we require; but, even apart from that, it is not exaggerating to say that if a war were upon us now our difficulty in getting horses would be infinitely greater than it was ten years ago. In almost every direction you find an increase of difficulty. Every one of your Lordships who read the Report of Lord Elgin's Commission will remember that far and away the most satisfactory thing in connection with the horsing of the Army in South Africa was the successful result of the employment of the London 'bus horse as an Artillery horse. Everybody spoke well of them; but at one of the recent conferences a director of one of the London omnibus companies said that at this moment 80 per cent. of the London omnibus horses were foreign born. I only mention this in passing to show that it is not a satisfactory feature, and that even the horses which proved the most satisfactory that we had to deal with in South Africa cannot be produced in England to a greater extent than 20 per cent. Obviously, therefore, something must be done.
Activity is called for on the part of the Government, and by activity one means extension of organisation, and extension of organisation, of course, means money. We do not want quack remedies. I was surprised to see, in an account of a speech made the other day by a distinguished soldier who is interested in this matter, a proposal, put forward, I hope, not seriously, that the motor car deluxe should be discouraged by heavy taxation, the money to go,
1166
not to the improvement of the roads, as has been suggested by my noble friend behind me, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, but to go to horse-breeding. I do not think that my noble friend who represents the War Office would himself adopt that as a practical remedy, but it is interesting as showing what extraordinary schemes are put forward. We do not, as I say, want quack remedies. It is only Government action that can help us to deal properly with the competition we are suffering from at this moment on the part of foreign Governments. The question resolves itself under two very simple heads—firstly, what is to be done; and, secondly, who is to do it?
In answer to the question what is to be done, there are, to my mind, two essentials that must be considered. In the first place, there must be a large extension of what is now done for stallions. At present the Royal Commission are able to offer twenty-eight King's premiums for stallions, and these I believe to be wholly insufficient to ensure breeding solely from good stallions, or to ensure that all our best stallions are not taken out of the country by foreign Governments. This action must be extended and increased. I do not wish to suggest that we should extend it to the extent that foreign Governments have gone. I believe the French Government owns 2,500 stallions. I do not suggest that we should try to emulate that example, but I mention the figure as showing that whatever we do now is totally inadequate when compared with these figures. I believe the Irish plan is a good one. In Ireland facilities are given by the Government to enable private individuals to purchase good stallions, but that does not go far enough. Personally I should not hesitate to support a Government which proposed to make it absolutely illegal to charge a serving fee for any stallion unless it was already passed and certified as sound by a Government inspector.
I hope the Government will do something also as regards mares. Many of our best mares are now leaving the country, having been purchased by foreign Governments and individuals abroad. They are thus lost to us for

1167
breeding purposes. It is a regrettable fact that a mare bought for the Army is equally lost. I believe it is a most exceptional thing that a mare once bought for the Army is ever used for the purpose of breeding. The Army system is that once they have got a horse they work it until it drops, and by the time it drops it is not a very good subject for breeding purposes. I do not intend to go into detail on the subject of what is required for mares. The details are before your Lordships in the Report of the Royal Commission now lying on the Table. Suffice it to say that something must be done to re-stock districts with suitable mares, and at the same time to ensure that their progeny is not entirely lost for the purposes of further breeding. We require, in fact, to build up our stock in the districts from top to bottom for breeding purposes.
Something has been done without cost to the public, but not enough to cause amelioration to the extent required. But I think enough has been done to show that from small beginnings and small expenditure satisfactory results do follow, and results such as would justify the most timid of Governments—I am not now referring to the present Government—to take a plunge. I am informed that in one district eleven mares were placed out under observation at a cost of £15. I do not pretend that the noble Earl opposite will be able to organise any districts at a cost of 25s. per mare, but I mention the figure as showing that with very little initial expenditure something can be done, and that a moderate expenditure may really be expected to have a great result.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): They were not bought for £15.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: No, they were presents, but the distributing organisation only cost £15. I now come to the second question: Who is to do this? The Royal Commission has hitherto been the only authority interesting itself in this question in a practical manner and although there have been certain attacks lately made on the Royal Commisssion, I certainly do not desire to associate myself with them, and,
1168
above all, I do not wish to rush in between the two assailants. I think everybody will admit that the Royal Commission has for twenty-one years done excellent work with almost starvation resources, and the public owes them a most sincere debt of gratitude for the good work that has been gratuitously done by the individual members. The Reports they make from time to time, the twelfth of which is now before your Lordships, contain almost invariably information and advice to anyone interested in horse-breeding. They have always known their own minds, they have advocated certain measures of amelioration ever since they were formed, and it has only been want of funds that has prevented them carrying out their original policy. A policy of premiums is not, I believe, what they would consider their first and their principal remedy. They were forced back upon their second line of policy for want of funds, but I think everybody will admit that their second line of policy has been a very successful one. I am informed that the success of the premium system as regards the main object with which it was instituted—that is to say, the promotion of soundness—is shown by the fact that with an annual production of 783 foals from premium horses their descendants won 498 prizes in 1907.
But if the work of the Royal Commission is to be extended, or, to put it boldly, if the Treasury is to provide more money for this kind of work, I cannot disguise from myself the fact that they are more likely to provide it if it is to be spent under the supervision of a Government Department. Therefore, if the necessities of the case make some sort of reorganisation necessary—I believe they do—I would content myself by saying that I hope the benefit which the public has received from the advice of this body of experts for the past twenty-one years will not be lost, and that we shall continue to enjoy the advantage of the assistance in some form or other of the individual members of the Royal Commission. What is it, therefore, that the Government have to hand? They have the fruits of twenty-one years of experience; they have the reports of conferences innumerable, in the course of which everybody

1169
interested in the subject has been able to put his view forward; and they have in the Papers before your Lordships certain schemes which I claim have acted successfully, though only on small lines. I hope, therefore, that before this debate concludes, the noble Earl opposite will be able to tell us that he means to push forward vigorously, both as regards organisation and expenditure, towards an object, upon the advisability of reaching which I take it we are all agreed.
Moved, "For Papers relating to the question of the provision of horses for military purposes."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I must first thank the noble Earl for the flattering tribute he paid to the modest, if painstaking, operations of the Royal Commission. The noble Earl said, at the conclusion of his remarks, that if a grant was likely to be given to supplement more substantially what has been done by the Royal Commission, it would be more willingly given by Parliament if vested in a Government Department rather than in the present Royal Commission. Although as a Commissioner I might have liked to have had notice of that proposition, speaking off-hand I find myself in agreement with him. The noble Earl also said that this is a subject which invariably lends itself to repetition. I have noticed that anything to do with horses always does. I will, however, try not to repeat what I have previously said and what the noble Earl has said, arid there is no necessity, I think, for me to give again the figures with which he has already dealt in the best possible way to bring the present state of things home to the House. I was very glad that the noble Earl who moved this Motion did not adduce an argument which I have constantly heard brought forward, namely, why does the richest country in the world only give £5,000 a year to horse-breeding, while France gives £200,000, and Austria £220,000? I was glad that argument was not used, because the cases are not comparable, we having no extended land frontiers to protect.
I do not like bounty-fed industries. I dislike extremely any restriction on the
1170
free current of supply and demand, and I think the sombre picture of our horse possibilities is often overdrawn and the jeremiads about it are very often overdone. Yet at the same time I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl in that, with all these reservations in my mind, we are at present face to face with a combination of various circumstances which, if it becomes normal, will be certainly insecure, and in the emergency of a sudden outbreak of war would at once become extremely hazardous. I rest myself for this on the words of Lord Carrington a few months ago when he told a company of his countrymen that horse-breeding occupies a thoroughly unsafe and unsatisfactory position. No one will accuse the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture of being a pessimist about any of the duties that are committed to his charge. When he says that, I think we may believe that he is citing what is the actual state of things, and we may credit him with a sincere determination to get this position into a more agreeable prospective in view of occurrences which might arise.
As the noble Earl who has just spoken said, we are considering especially the provision of public service horses—artillery, cavalry, and transport. The noble Earl said a good many things about 'bus horses which I will not go into, but I say "ditto" to him on those points. While we may look upon it from the Army point of view, we have also got the consumer and the taxpayer's point of view inextricably involved. We are all taxpayers, many of us are interested directly or indirectly in agriculture, we are all concerned with an efficient cavalry, and as a House we have always been particularly connected by the public with a knowedge of and liking for anything to do with horseflesh. I remember the late Lord Pembroke used to say that there was only one subject which did interest the House of Lords, namely, anything to do with horses. So that such seed as is sown to-night seems to me to have the benefit of being sown on more or less prepared ground.
In my opinion what we have to consider is whether the taxpayer can be honestly recommended to give a little more, either directly or indirectly, for public service

1171
horses, and whether agriculture by some practical covenant of this kind can be induced to breed more horses of the type and quality required, from which Army purchasers can select their requirements and anticipate the foreign purchaser, whose operations are represented by some people as being almost piratical, though as a producer of horses I cannot take quite that view myself. I am told that only the other day the powers that be at the War Office, acting in harmony with the powers that be at the Board of Agriculture, came to the conclusion that a good thing would be for the Government to buy three year-olds. That I believe to be a matter of cardinal importance, and it would be the most important step taken since this question has been prominently before the public. It would give an especial stimulus in England. I believe that the great majority—certainly over 70 per cent.—of the horses for the Army are bought in Ireland. They are purchased when four years old. The Irishman has an aptitude for horses which the Englishman does not possess. He has a country which is practically unfenced, and he naturally wishes to keep his horse till it is four years old. If he does not like the animal then, he is willing to sell it at remount price, but he is not willing to sell a three-year-old. But there are lots of people in England with small fenced holdings, and the very last thing they want is a wild and well-bred three-year-old knocking about the place with no one to look after him. That man is willing to sell a three-year-old, and I, as a taxpayer, would run the risk of buying a three-year-old. The foreigners are quite good enough judges to come here and buy our three-year-olds.
I rather agree with the noble Earl that if something is going to be done, it need not be a very large sum. The Government have already a good deal of experience, and active machinery is at hand which has been more or less perfected by the Brood Mare Society, the Hunters' Improvement Society, the farmers' clubs, and the district committees which do a great deal of useful work for the Royal Commission. The noble Earl referred to quack remedies. Speaking as a taxpayer I am not fond of very heroic remedies, represented
1172
by the figures which I see constantly advocated in the Press and by enthusiasts on this subject. Having had twenty-one years experience in this matter, and having agitated on the question in a more or less quiet way—without robbing myself of a night's rest or getting locked up for storming the House of Commons—I say that the present Minister for War is the only Minister in my experience who has given any real direct attention to the solution of this difficulty. He is, I believe, acting in the most harmonious relation with the President of the Board of Agriculture. No doubt both Ministers are in the usual difficulty in which I believe Ministers invariably find themselves when they want to do anything which costs money, the difficulty lying in the taxpayers' pocket and the ever-increasing accounts of our national housekeeping books. I am certain that the man we have got to convince is not my noble friend below me or my right hon. friend the Minister for War—the man we have got to convince is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who very properly keeps a jealous care of his key and is responsible to the taxpayer for the money he finds. What I think all who are interested in this particular question have to do is to make out a sufficiently good case on its merits and of not too heroic dimensions, which will convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a grant such as that recommended by Lord Donoughmore, not of a very large amount, but of a considerably larger amount than that which is at present at the disposal of the Royal Commission.
THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of the noble Earl who has brought this subject before the House, because I think it is quite impossible to exaggerate the importance of it both from a national and from an Army point of view. I think the fact that we have admittedly lost the predominant position we used to occupy as a horse-breeding country and the fact that the Royal Commission has told us that the country has been swept of stallions, mares, and three-year-olds render it imperative that the Government should do something to try and arrest

1173
a further denuding of the country of horses suitable for military purposes.
To my mind it is impossible to disguise the fact that it is altogether beyond the power of private enterprise to cope with this question. It can only be dealt with by State aid and under scientific direction, and, in spite of what Lord Ribblesdale has said, on a scale which has never before been contemplated in this country. The public have never realised how great the danger from a military point of view is. Otherwise they never would have acquiesced in the miserable sum of £5,000, which is all that has been allowed to the Royal Commission for the encouragement of horse-breeding. In foreign countries all this is very differently managed, and every encouragement is given to the breeder to produce good cavalry horses. The amount spent in France is, I believe, £300,000 a year, and not £200,000 as has been stated; in Germany, £190,000; in Austria-Hungary £370,000; in Russia, £500,000 per annum; and Italy, £54,000. It is small wonder that our cavalry should not be so well mounted as foreign cavalry, and that our horses should be of a decidedly inferior character to the horses of France, Germany, and Austria. I have this on the very best authority, and I do not think it is a matter of which this country can be proud. As far as the question of land frontiers goes I can hardly agree with Lord Ribblesdale, because we have almost the largest land frontiers in the world in India and in Canada.
In discussing this question it is quite impossible to separate the two problems, the civil and the military. Unless we can get the farmer to produce the horse, the Army, of course, cannot get it, and, conversely, if the breeder cannot get a market other than the normal market of the Army it will not pay him to breed. The normal number of horses we want annually is 2,700, but on mobilisation that number would rush up to 170,000. It is between these two figures that the great difficulty exists, and I hope the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture will be able, to give us some idea of how this is to be remedied. The other day Lord Newton asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how soon the Territorial
1174
Army would be able to mobilise, and Lord Lucas replied, "Instantly." I ventured at the time to ask whether arrangements had been made for the horses for the Territorial Army on mobilisation, in addition to those which would be required for the Regular Army. The noble Lord replied that the horses were in the country, and that the question was receiving due consideration. I have very grave doubts as to whether horses for the Territorial Force on mobilisation exist in the country.
It has been admitted that if we were to mobilise the Regulars at once we should be 54,000 horses short. I understand that the Artillery alone require 18,000 horses; only about 5,000 are available for the purpose, and since what I may call the passing of the 'bus horse the balance is very much more difficult to get. The figures which the War Office have supplied are largely conjectural, and I think it is of the greatest importance that there should be a census of the horses in this country, and that they should be properly classified. There is no doubt that what are called general utility horses are getting fewer year by year, because it does not pay farmers to breed them. What they breed are cart horses and show horses, but these are of no use for military purposes. The public do not realise that of the 21,000 Yeomanry less than one-half have their own horses, some 11,000 being hired, and, what is more, these are hired over and over again, with the result that it would be impossible for all the Yeomanry regiments to go into training at the same time. In the case of some of the London regiments they are entirely horsed, I believe, by Mr. Tilling, who stipulates that they should not train simultaneously, as three men cannot ride one horse. I think that is a serious matter. Every Yeoman in the country ought to have a horse registered which could be immediately claimed on mobilisation.
Reference has been made to a discussion which took place the other night at a meeting of the National Defence Association, at which Lord Ribblesdale read a paper. There were present at that meeting, besides the Minister for Agriculture, a great many officers, some now serving in the Remount Department and some who served in the Remount

1175
Department at an earlier date, most of them with war service. Officers of the Artillery, Cavalry, and Yeomanry were also present. Mr. Tilling, who is, I believe, one of the largest jobmasters in London, was there, and an agent, who told us that during the last forty years he had supplied 37,000 horses to the French Government. Mr. Eagan told us that in some years he had supplied them with as many as 2,500 horses. Last year he had only sent 300 horses over; he might have had a contract for 800 but could not find them. Mr. Tilling also stated that during the last fifteen years the price of a bus horse had gone up from £10 to £15, and that he had the greatest difficulty in finding them. The general opinion of those present at this very representative meeting seemed to be that the general utility horse was getting more and more difficult to find. They also thought that the numbers would not be forthcoming in an emergency. They suggested the importance of the retention of mares in this country, because they said that as long as we had racing here there would be no difficulty in getting the stallions. They also represented that it would be better if we could buy our horses at three years old instead of four years old, so as to prevent them being taken abroad.
I know I shall be told that instead of spending a great deal of money now the best thing for us to do will be to buy horses in the event of emergency, but I very much doubt whether we shall be able to do this, as in the case of a European war foreign Governments and staffs would see to it that the Continental markets were closed. Luckily the Boers overlooked this question; otherwise it can hardly be doubted that they would have done something to close the markets in Europe, while, with the large amount of treasure they then possessed, they might very easily have bought up all the horses in the Argentine. They meant to beat us all the time by their horses, but, unfortunately for them and luckily for us, they underrated our power of buying. It is very unpleasant to think of what would have happened to us supposing our supply of horses at that moment had failed. The waste of horses at the beginning of the South African War
1176
was very great. Going up to the relief of Kimberley the Cavalry Division was practically wrecked. I find no fault with that, because I think the game was quite worth the candle. In my opinion the relief of Kimberley and the surrender at Paardeberg perfectly justified the sacrifice of horses, but it is very painful to think what would have happened to us if that Cavalry Division could not have been remounted owing to the closing of the European markets, and if we could not have got horses for the very large number of mounted men required towards the end of the War.
We shall, of course, be able to get a certain number of horses from our colonies, but the number will be limited, and it must be remembered that every transport will have to be protected. I have pointed out these matters because I think they are worthy of consideration by the man in the street, who does not really appreciate the gravity of the situation. Lord Carrington told us, at the end of our discussion the other night, that the present state of the horse question in this country was a national disgrace. I hope the noble Earl will tell us to-night how he is going to remedy that disgrace. In conclusion, I would say that I do not see any use in encouraging breeding for the benefit of the foreigner; what we want is some scheme by which the horses we have can be retained in this country.
LORD LOVAT: I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. Does any one know, within half a million, the number of horses in Great Britain and Ireland at the present moment?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): All the horses in the United Kingdom? Two million and eighty-seven thousand.
LORD LOVAT: If the noble Earl will turn to Page 86 of the Agricultural Statistics, 1907, he will see that this total refers to horses for agricultural purposes, including mares kept for breeding and unbroken horses. That is the very point I want to bring out,

1177
because, so far as I can learn, nobody has the least idea—apparently not even the President of the Board of Agriculture—as to how many horses are in the streets of London, and the other great cities and elsewhere in the country. I believe that only one gentleman has attempted to solve this, and he was a Cambridge professor, whose book is, I believe, in the possession of the Board of Agriculture, and he gives a very different return. The first move before we can begin to discuss the question is to have a census of all the horses in the country. That will have to be done by law, and the horses should be classified as to their suitability for military purposes, and the annual veterinary certificates as to their fitness should be returned. The horse question is studied in every country but our own. In France and Germany every officer has a sealed envelope containing directions as to where his horses are, and where he is to send them in case of mobilisation. We have no sort of mobilisation orders in this matter. The War Office the other day issued an an Order that no horses should be recruited for the Territorial Army until the whole of the horses required for the Regular Army had been procured. That throws back the mobilisation of the Territorial Army to an unknown date. It is absolutely the fact that only on one occasion has there been a real census, and that was when the late General Gatacre, who was a very hard-working officer, had every horse in Wiltshire properly marked down. Before we can possibly get much further in the discussion of this subject we ought certainly to inform ourselves of the number of horses we have in this country, and the only method of doing that is to have a census enforced by law in order to get it thoroughly done.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not propose to intervene for more than a brief moment between your Lordships and the reply of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. By his public utterances the noble Earl has given rise to very high hopes in this matter. He has told us very plainly indeed that he is impressed with the arguments which have been uttered not for the first time to-night by my noble
1178
friend behind me who was Under-Secretary for War in the last Government. He has told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great duty to perform. He did not tell us quite what that duty was, but I think we can fairly guess—it is to keep his pocket buttoned-up as closely as he can. But the noble Earl went on to say that he had great hopes that he would be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something to overcome the difficulties referred to to-night. I wish to associate myself entirely with all that fell from my noble friend with regard to the work of the Royal Commission. The work of that Commission has occasionally been subjected to criticism, but I am quite certain that in all its Reports, and perhaps in this twelfth Report more than any, we have the most valuable contributions to the question of horse-breeding that any country could possibly desire to have. It is equally true that, if my noble friend succeeds in softening the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be very difficult to do so to the extent of inviting him to increase the funds at the disposal of the Royal Commission. But I hope that there will not be any feeling between the members of that Commission and the President or the staff at the Board of Agriculture. I cannot myself, from some knowledge of the inner working of that office, see any reason why the Royal Commission might not very well work as the handmaid of the Board of Agriculture. I know there are extremely capable officials in that Department, but I am not prepared, to say that they are equipped with special knowledge of the question of horse-breeding, and I think that special knowledge might easily be provided by the members of the Royal Commission. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell your Lordships to-night that it is the determination of the Government to deal seriously with this question. Every year it becomes more apparent that the horses available in this country in case of war are becoming fewer and fewer, and I can assure the noble Earl opposite that if he wants any support in the operation of unbuttoning the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he will get that support from those who sit on this side of the House.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Report of the Royal Commission, which has been introduced to your Lordships' notice in an excellent speech by the noble Earl opposite, is a double-barrelled Report. It deals first with the question of horse-breeding and the supply of military horses, which is very interesting and important; and, in the second place, it deals with a speech of my own made about sixteen months ago, which I am afraid is neither one nor the other. I can assure the House that, so far as the Board of Agriculture is concerned, the best possible feeling exists towards the Royal Commission. I am afraid I got rather into a scrape by making the speech which is noticed at length in the Report. Perhaps I may read my exact words. I said—
"Almost the whole time of this conference was taken up by speeches of the members of the Commission, who enlarged on the need of more money but proposed no plan for dealing with the question."
I made a mistake. The best of us do that sometimes, and I apologise to the members of the Royal Commission for having used the plural for the singular. One member of the Commission made a somewhat lengthy speech which took up one-fifth of the time of the conference. The other members made excellent and pithy speeches, all to the point and many of them embodying excellent suggestions; but each of them said he was speaking for himself individually, and not for the Commission at all. I was right, therefore, when I said that no scheme was put forward by the Commission as a whole.
But the Commission's first Report contains a scheme which is practically complete, in which the policy of the Brood Mare Society is said to be probably the best means of dealing with the question. That is a great compliment to Mr. Algernon Turner and the noble Earl opposite who have taken a great interest in that society. The other proposal is that the Government should purchase the very pick of the most desirable stallions in addition to the premium stallions. On the face of it, that seems to me rather a tall order when the income-tax stands at 1s in the £ The Commissioners is their Report (page iv.) refer to the formation of a haras and state that the
1180
formation of a haras ought to be accompanied, they think, by a scheme for providing liberal premiums for competition by stallions; and in Paragraph II. they say—
"From these views the Commissioners have never departed."
On the other hand, the idea of a haras has been condemned by Lord Donoughmore, by the Director-General of Remounts, by Sir Walter Gilbey, by Mr. Algernon Turnor, and others, and when such experts disagree it is not for me to decide the point. I do not, therefore, propose to take up your Lordships' time further in regard to that matter.
The last proposal of the Royal Commission is that, to encourage breeders, a large and liberal addition should be made to the prizes offered at agricultural shows; and for these three recommendations it is proposed that a grant of £25,000 should be given to the Royal Commission, in addition to the £5,000 already granted, making a total of £30,000 a year. Of course, it is not for me to say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer of either Party would be willing to meet that demand. I think all will agree that the Report of the Royal Commission as it stands is extremely valuable and full of useful information. It contains many valuable suggestions from both individuals and societies, and, although the Report may not have given satisfaction to everybody—that, I think, is an impossibility—I heartily agree with the noble Lords who have preceded me that the country ought to be very grateful to the members who have attended the meetings of the Commission so regularly, and who have given so much of their time and done so much on so small a subsidy; and I think the thanks of the country are especially due to my noble friend behind me, Lord Ribblesdale, and to the Duke of Portland, who, I believe, were the original parents and promoters of the movement.
Before I leave the Report altogether there is one clause—Clause 45—to which I take exception. It is a damnatory clause, and, in condemning the present Government it says that seventeen months have elapsed and the country

1181
is still left without the aid and encouragement of the horsebreeding industry which is so greatly needed and is of so vital importance. That is perfectly true, but what struck me immediately on reading that clause was that if we are so much to blame for having done nothing in the matter for seventeen months, are not other people still more blameworthy for having done nothing for seventeen years? Still I know the tu quoque argument carries no weight in the country, and I will not pursue it; but I think the charge is a little unfair. When the present Government came into office two and-a-half years ago a great many agricultural matters required attention. We have been able to pass eight agricultural measures. It was not until the session of 1907 that we were able to take up this particular matter in earnest. As soon as I was able to deal with it I approached the War Office, which was very sympathetic and helpful, and we tried to frame a practical scheme which would meet the difficulties.
I will state, as clearly and briefly as I can, the proposals which eventually we mean to bring forward. We are face to face with two things. We have to encourage horse-breeding generally and to secure a reserve supply of horses of a class from which remounts for the Army can be obtained. We have heard this afternoon that the Army buys 2,500 horses annually at five years old; they pay £40 apiece, making a total of £100,000 a year; so that the War Office are a very fair customer of the tenant farmers of England and Ireland. Then we are told that 70,000 horses would be required on mobilisation of the expeditionary force, and the total number required to bring the units up to war estalishment is 174,000, of which 59,000 would be cavalry horses, a certain number would be artillery horses, and the others would be heavy draught horses necessary for the Army Service Corps and the wagons. This total of 174,000 includes the horses for the Territorial Force, but I do not propose to touch on that question now. The object is to get a scheme for the expeditionary force first, and then, afterwards, in concert with the lords-lieutenant and the County Associations,
1182
we will endeavour to find a scheme for the Territorial Force. The chief reason for having separate schemes is to avoid overlapping. Your Lordships will learn with satisfaction, on the authority of the Director-General of Remounts, that the present supply of horses in the country would probably nearly meet the requirements of that Department. The known number of horses in the country is 2,089,000. Those are agricultural and young horses, but that number does not include the horses in the towns.
LORD LOVAT: How many horses are there in the towns?
EARL CARRINGTON: I was coming to that. The noble Lord's proposal that a census of the town horses should be taken is a very good one. That is a proposal we have under consideration. We wish to know what horses there are in private and public stables, in the omnibus and cab stables in the big towns in England. It is no use being an alarmist, and I think my noble friend Lord Lucas will bear me out that there is no immediate cause for alarm. If the horses are wanted at once they are there. We have that on the authority of the Director-General of Remounts; and, of course, we should be able to take these horses in case of invasion.
EARL FORTESCUE: Does the noble Earl know approximately how many horses there are other than agricultural horses in the country?
EARL CARRINGTON: That is what I was endeavouring to explain. There is no census at the present moment—
LORD LOVAT: In fact, you have not the least idea how many there are?
EARL CARRINGTON: Of course, there have been guesses, but I would prefer to stick to the statistics we have, if noble Lords would not mind.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: The noble Earl spoke of getting at the number of active horses in the towns. Is he under the impression that there is a census of the active horses in the country, including

1183
those which are the property of private owners? I do not remember any one asking me how many I had in my stables.
EARL CARRINGTON: We have a Return of the number of horses in each part of the United Kingdom up to 1907. The total is 2,089,000. In addition, there are all the town horses of which it is suggested we should also have a census. We should then know, to within two or three hundred, practically how many horses we have in the towns and in the country.
LORD LOVAT: I do not think the noble Earl has answered Lord Ribblesdale's question. Unless Lord Ribblesdale's hunters are taken out to draw the garden mower, or are used for some agricultural purpose, they would not come under this Return.
EARL CARRINGTON: We shall have to have an inquisition of my noble friend's horses as well. I believe the number of hunting horses in the stables is known.
LORD LOVAT: By whom is it known?
LORD HENEAGE: Is it not the fact that nothing is known of any horses whatever except agricultural horses?
EARL CARRINGTON: That is so, but we are considering the best way in which a census of the town horses can be obtained as well.
LORD HENEAGE: And all the country horses?
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I suggest that what is required to be known is the number of horses which would be useful in an emergency, and if you do not get that the census would be no good at all.
EARL CARRINGTON: I quite agree. I think this is wholly a question of machinery and detail. We have, under our scheme, to get an advisory committee, and we shall be glad to have the advantage of the advice of my noble friend and of any one who will be good enough to help us so that we may get the total
1184
number of horses in town and country in England and Ireland.
LORD LOVAT: I should like to ask—
THE EARL OF CREWE: Really, my Lords, this is becoming so very irregular that I must protest.
EARL CARRINGTON: As I have said, this is wholly a question of machinery and detail. Though there is no alarm for the present, the future does cause the War Office no little anxiety. As the noble Earl opposite has said, there were 10,000 fewer foals in 1906 than in 1905, and, therefore, it is the duty of the Government, in the agricultural interest as well as in that of the Army, to take the whole matter in hand. The scheme is practically the registration of a large number of suitable stallions, say 500, and of a large number of suitable mares—we ought, eventually, to have no less than 25,000 brood mares. The registration of their stock would be approved by the military authorities, but no brood animal would be accepted unless, first, it was passed by a civil veterinary surgeon for breeding purposes, and, secondly, by a remount officer certifying it as suitable for the Army. All registered animals would thus be officially certified as sound. That is, I think, a most important matter, because it would discredit, if it did not altogether knock out, the unsound animals that are now travelling about the country. The ultimate object, and it would not take many years, would be to secure the breeding annually of 15,000 foals of the various classes registered, so that we might be able at a moment's notice to put our hands on the 70,000 horses required in the case of sudden mobilisation. That relates entirely to the First Line, and does not bring in the Territorials at all.
Then we propose to give a special fee to the stallion owner, in addition to the covering fee, for every registered mare which is found to be in foal to the registered stallion at the end of the covering season. I know a good many people would sooner see the money go to the mares, but I am not certain that this plan would be the better of the two. If you gave a certain amount

1185
to each travelling stallion at the end of the covering season it would amount to a very considerable sum, and it would make the owners of these stallions missionaries in the movement. When a mare was brought to the horse the owner of the stallion would ask: Is she registered? If she were not registered he would not get the additional fee, and, therefore, he would urge the owner of the mare to get her registered and procure the certificate of soundness. In that way we think we should have 500 travelling missionaries in the country desirous in their own interests of getting the mares registered. It is also proposed to assist the owners of mares in some cases by the payment of the whole or part of the covering fee. This is intended to assist the small farmer, but the payment of such fees on a large scale could not be undertaken.
Then there is the proposal, which originated and was very much insisted upon two years ago in the speech which the Duke of Portland made on horse breeding in your Lordships' House, of the purchase of three-year-olds, instead of five-year-old horses. Your Lordships will see that there is a supplementary report advocating that by Sir Walter Gilbey in the Report of the Royal Commission. The difficulty up to the present time on the side of the War Office has been in looking after these three-year-old horses when they have been obtained. The cavalry commanding officers do not want them in their stables; they want animals in a hard condition that they can depend on. Then there is the great expense involved if you have harases or depots where the horses are looked after during the two years which are the most dangerous in their existence. The French plan is to buy three-year-olds in the autumn. The mares are purchased in March or April, and are left with the owner, who feeds and keeps them under inspection and in good condition at light work. But each year a Government stallion is brought into requisition. The foals remain the property of the breeder, and then the mare is taken over by the military authorities in her sixth year, when her second foal is weaned.
1186
Then comes the question of expense. The establishment expenses are necessarily very heavy. The cost for the five or six-year-old horses that pass into the ranks of the French Army is £70 or £80, as compared with £40 here. Some means must be found, if possible, to carry out this idea in a cheaper way. The idea is that all the young horses should be left with their sellers until such time as they were required, a monthly payment being made for their keep for not more than two years. Then it would have to be discussed as to what should be done with the mares and the horses, but the foal would be the property of the farmer who sold the horse at three years old. The Army Council would agree to inspect the produce of all breeding stock at three years. This would mean an inspection of, we hope, from 12,000 to 15,000 young horses annually, so as to keep a lien on the three-year-old horses. Then a report would be made to the Board of Agriculture on the remainder of the 12,000 to 15,000 young horses, which would be placed on the register of young horses. Then we should know pretty well what position we were in.
It is next proposed that the Board of Agriculture should be assisted in carrying out the scheme by a consultative committee, on which we hope to induce the representatives of the leading societies who have done so much good in the past to give their aid—such societies as the Brood Mare Society and the Hunters Improvement Society—as well as noble Lords and other persons whose disinterested activity in the cause is a household word.
There is only one matter I have not dealt with and that is the question of cost. The noble Earl opposite joined organisation and expenditure together. We can be responsible for the organisation, and, with the help of the advisory committee, we hope we may be able to do something practical. But expenditure comes under an entirely different head. We have worked out satisfactory figures among the departments concerned, and I am glad to say that we have the entire co-operation of my right hon. friend the Secretary of

1187
State for War, and of the Army Council. The question of expenditure is now being examined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I need hardly remind your Lordships that the commitments of the Government at present are very large. It would be, however, to the best interests of the nation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have all his liabilities and all the requests submitted before he gave any definite pledge, even on such an important subject as this. The scheme will depend entirely for its success on the support given to it by horse-owners and persons interested in horse-breeding. I hope that, though the scheme may not please everyone, it will receive support, for it is by some such method as this that the country can alone hope to deal with the question which has in days gone by been a practical danger, and which is considered to be, in present circumstances, a national disgrace.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether there is anything in the Government scheme to prevent the foreigner from entering into competition with the Government in either buying mares or their produce; or are they earmarked for the Government in case of war?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am glad that the noble Lord has taken up that question. There is nothing whatever in the scheme to stop the ready sale of horses abroad. I venture to think that that would be a very dangerous thing to do. There is nothing in the scheme to prevent a man from breeding the best kind of barouche horse, or a high-class hunting horse, and exporting it; but we are trying to get enough of the "misfits" and to make them into a better class of horse than they are at present, so as to enable a ready sale to the War Office of horses which are not wanted for other purposes. But there is nothing to hamper the great horse-breeding industry, which brings a great deal of money into this country.
LORD HENEAGE: Do I understand that we are now to have a return of all horses in town and country under a proper classification? I think it is
1188
clearly admitted that we have no return whatever except as regards what are called shire horses. Does the noble Earl now intend to have a full return?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I have not been able to make myself understood. My great desire is to get a census of all the horses in the country, and I hope my noble friend will give me the benefit of his advice and assistance.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lord, I do not desire to press my Motion. I would thank the noble Earl for the trouble he has taken in putting, his scheme before us this evening. It would be ungracious on my part to criticise it at such short notice, but I hope the noble Earl will continue pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the sooner something is done the better. I am sure he will have the unanimous support of your Lordships in pressing him. I may say that I am a little alarmed at the use of the word "misfit" as applied to the horsing of the Army. We have heard of a great many kinds of horses this evening, but I should be sorry to think that the noble Earl's scheme would have such a small result as perhaps would be suggested by his last remark. I hope it will be kept in mind that we want to retain our best horses for ourselves. I am confident that something in the direction of placing difficulties in the way of the foreigner coming in and purchasing our best horses is necessary, and I am not at all certain at the moment that what is now suggested is enough.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NURSES REGISTRATION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, in view of the considerable tax which has already been placed upon your Lordships' attention I will endeavour to abbreviate as far as possible what I have to say. I trust your Lordships will allow me to begin by explaining how I come to be in charge of this Bill. Some few weeks ago when I took it upon myself to move the

1189
rejection of the Official Directory of Nurses Bill, the Bill which was designed in opposition to this Bill, I explained to the House that I did so of my own motion, and not as the spokesman of any league or body of persons outside this House. The Society for the State Registration of Nurses, however, encouraged by your Lordships' vote on that occasion, and recognising that in view of the state of business in the other House of Parliament their chances of obtaining a hearing for their Bill in that House were becoming less and less, asked me to introduce it in your Lordships' House.
It is, therefore—and I explain this in order that I may not be thought to be sailing under false colours—as the spokesman of that Society that I am here to-day. Diffident though I was about the matter, I could not refuse a request made to me in that way, and I am proud to be the spokesman of a body of women who are engaged in that noble calling which more than any other, I think, brings out the best qualities of the gentler sex. In any circumstances, whether it had been late or not, I should have been very much divided in mind as to whether I should say all those things which the advocates of State Registration would wish me to say on behalf of their cause, or whether I should avoid trespassing unduly upon your Lordships' attention and patience. I hope that I am safe in yielding to the latter consideration, relying on the very great practical knowledge and experience which most of your Lordships have of those conditions of our social life which are affected by the proposed legislation.
The question is one of very great importance. It has been agitated for twenty years past; it has formed the subject of an exhaustive inquiry on the part of a Committee of the House of Commons which sat during two sessions; and where-ever it has arisen elsewhere, whether it be in foreign countries or in our own Colonies, owing to the organisation of nurses it has led to legislation very similar to that which is now proposed. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, speaking with all the responsibility of his position as Lord President of the Council, the Department which is particularly concerned, said, on March 8, 1905, that the subject was one of national importance,
1190
and that it could not be long before it engaged the serious attention of Parliament; and the noble Earl added that it was also apparent that there was a strong preponderance of opinion in favour of the scheme of State registration. But I hope it will not be considered presumption on my part if I venture to quote-an even more important utterance. His Majesty the King, speaking on Saturday at the opening of the buildings for the Royal National Pension Fund for Nurses, spoke as follows:—
"It has now, happily, long been recognised that in the alleviation of pain and sickness, good nursing is of supreme importance, and that it is in the interests of the community that measures should be taken to obtain ski ed and efficient nurses in increased numbers and to procure for them such advantages and prospects as will retain them in their profession."
Of course, I do not presume for one moment to guess what was in His Majesty's mind, but this I do know, that there is no measure which, in the opinion of the great majority of the nursing and medical professions, would be better calculated to secure that end than a measure of the kind now before your Lordships. Registration is, indeed, an essential preliminary to any further steps for increasing the efficiency and improving the prospects of the nursing profession.
Again, I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that in these days of the feminist movement Parliament would do well to pay careful attention to a demand which is put forward with steady persistence but with perfect propriety by a body of women whose services to the community are both unquestioned and indispensable. Whether we be advocates of woman suffrage or whether we be opposed to that policy, we are equally concerned, I think, as politicians, to see that such a demand is treated with due respect.
So much for the general importance of the question. It behoves me to explain—and I will do so as briefly as possible—the objects, reasons, and nature of the demand for the legislation proposed in this Bill. In other words, I have to show the House what is demanded, why it is demanded, and by whom it is demanded. In the first place, then, what the nurses—and with them are

1191
associated many who do not belong to the profession—ask for is this. I will give it to your Lordships in their own words. They ask that—
"The term 'trained nurse' shall have a definite meaning; that anyone using it shall submit to a definite examination and satisfy an authority appointed by the State that he or she possesses the qualifications necessary to render him or her a safe attendant on the sick, and that the names of those who attain the prescribed standard shall be entered on a nursing register so that the public may be enabled easily to distinguish qualified from unqualified nurses."
That is the whole extent of the demand. What is asked for, in fact, is that nurses should be treated by the State in the same way as solicitors, physicians, surgeons, dentists, and even midwives are already treated; that, in view of the increased demands for efficiency which have been made, and which the nurses themselves have done so much to meet, there should be extended to them the legislation which has developed on uniform and well-established principles in respect to kindred professions, not only in this country but also in the British Colonies.
Next, what are the reasons for this demand? Speaking in general terms, it is for the protection of the public just as much as for the protection of the nurses themselves; but it is necessary, I think, that I should explain this point a little further. In the first place, then, there exist at the present moment no standards of nursing education, and the consequence is that the value of training and of the consequent certificates which are given by the different institutions regarded as nursing schools vary considerably. Indeed, there are as many opinions as to what constitutes a sufficient training and as to what amount of training entitles a nurse to a certificate as there are nursing schools and similar institutions. In a great many of these institutions there is no doubt that a very inefficient training is given to the nurses. This is unfair to the nurses, who pay for the training by a very great sacrifice of time, if not of money, and it is unfair to the public, who are unable to judge of the relative value of these certificates. What is wanted, then, is an educational authority
1192
which would be able to lay down what the standard of training entitling a nurse to a certificate should be. The lay governors of hospitals, admirable though their work is, and greatly experienced though many of them are, are not exactly in the position to lay down standards of this kind, and certainly they have no means of all agreeing together what the standards should be and of enforcing them. Again, owing to the lack of a governing body for the nursing profession, the certificate of a nurse cannot be withdrawn even where she has been convicted of crime, and this, as I shall show your Lordships, is a very serious matter indeed. I might go on to refer to the absence of any standard for matrons and of any regulation that those who fill the highly important and responsible position of matron of a hospital or nursing home should be required to go through further tests, but I hardly think that is necessary for my present purpose.
I hope I have said enough to show that, in the absence of the safeguards which belong to other professions, the public suffer so far as the nursing profession is concerned, and, at the same time, the nurses suffer when discredit is thrown on their profession on occasions when unqualified persons use the name of nurse for improper and dishonest purposes. I could give your Lordships a great many instances. I have, in fact, a very large supply of them here, but I hardly think it is necessary to give them in view of the fact that most of your Lordships must, in the course of your ordinary everyday experience, have come across cases of the kind which I have in my mind. It is a matter of common knowledge that the nursing homes for the care of private patients are under no supervision. There is no guarantee whatever that the patients receive the skilled nursing for which they pay. In some cases—in a good few cases, I believe—these nursing homes are commercial speculations on the part of unprofessional persons who make their profit by enabling those who do not care to go through the long grind of a thorough hospital training to take away a certificate of nurse and to trade upon it. Some of these homes are even worse, and are simply places where abortion is practiced

1193
and which are centres of immorality and crime.
Perhaps I might just give your Lordships three very brief instances of what I mean. Sir Victor Horsley told the Select Committee of the House of Commons that in a nursing home to which he himself frequently sent patients, he recognised a scrubber dressed up as a nurse and attending to one of his patients. That is an instance of the kind of fraud which can be perpetrated even in a perfectly well-known and respectable nursing institution under such distinguished supervision as that of Sir Victor Horsley. A graver case is that of the two women who were hanged at Holloway in consequence of abominable crimes in 1903. The newspapers at the time were filled with sensational headlines, and the placards in the streets contained such announcements as "Nurses charged with murder." I need hardly explain how painfully the nursing profession suffer from episodes of this kind, and thus having the name of their profession associated with criminals. The third instance is quite a recent one. It is that of the woman who went by the alias of Princess Soltikoff, whose case was notorious a couple of years ago, and who was sentenced at the Old Bailey to fifteen months' hard labour for fraud in 1906. She had previously been sentenced for a similar crime in 1903, but between these two convictions she had four or five situations as a nurse and had been in several hospitals. That, my Lords, is an instance of the possibilities for criminally-disposed persons in the present absence of safeguards. I trust I have said enough to show your Lordships how essential it is that the public should have means of distinguishing efficient nurses from criminals who pose as members of a profession to which they do not belong and on which they bring great discredit and shame.
Next, my Lords, I have to tell you who make this demand for legislation. It is, in the first place, practically the whole of the organised body of the nursing profession; secondly, practically the whole of the medical profession; and, thirdly, a number of important bodies concerned with women's work. I am quite prepared to substantiate this statement, but in
1194
view of my undertaking not to occupy very much of your Lordships' time I trust it will be taken for granted. The position is this. The number of nurses in this country has been variously estimated, and there is no certain information, just as in the case of the horses we have been discussing. But what is quite certain is that, of the total number of nurses, nearly all those who are organised in leagues and associations have expressed themselves in favour of State registration. The number who have so declared in favour of this policy is about 10,000. I have the whole of the details here, but as I trust that the assertion which was made on the former occasion that the movement was really got up on the principle of a stage army—a most unfair and unjustifiable statement—will not be made again, I will not use my figures unless I am obliged to do so. Then there are a great many nurses who do not belong to leagues and associations, and who have individually expressed themselves in favour of legislation. Scottish nurses are not organised, but it is well known that they have complete confidence in a very representative body called the Scottish Registration Committee. Lastly, I should like to point out that a great many nurses are not free to give an unbiassed opinion on this subject, and have therefore remained silent.
I said that practically the whole of the medical profession are in favour of it. The General Medical Council pronounced in favour of the principle of State registration so far back as 1889, and the British Medical Association, which is composed of 21,000 medical practitioners—about two-thirds of the whole profession—has passed formal resolutions in favour of State registration on three occasions—in 1895, in 1904, and in 1906. The most important of those votes was that which took place in 1906, when ninety out of ninety-three Members present voted for the resolution in favour of State registration, and that was after two years consideration of the subject in the constituencies which were represented at the meeting. I think that fact fully justifies me in saying that practically the whole of the medical profession are in favour of the State registration of nurses. Then I mentioned that there

1195
were a number of important bodies engaged in women's work who supported this Bill. I refer to the Asylum Workers Association, the National Union of Women Workers, and the Women's Industrial Council. The Committee of the House of Commons took exhaustive evidence, and on the question of principle expressed themselves as follows—
"Your Committee are agreed that it is desirable that a register of nurses should be kept by a central body appointed by the State."
That opinion, I understand, was endorsed by the Lord-President of the Council, speaking with all the responsibility of head of the Department particularly concerned. There is yet one more reason which I should like to urge before I go on actually to the Bill, and that is that midwives, whose training is infinitely less than that which is required of a skilled nurse—a matter of two months as against three years—are already registered on precisely the same principles as those advocated in this Bill. What is the opposition? I do not think I need go over that ground, as the opposition was, I think, fully disposed of by your Lordships' vote—a vote of three to one, I think it was—on the Official Directory of Nurses Bill.
I will, therefore, go on to explain, in a very few words, what the Bill actually does. I may say that the Bill has been five times before the House of Commons, and it has been backed by Members of every Party, but owing to ill-luck it has never gained a place in the ballot and has therefore never come up for Second Reading. The actual scope of the Bill, as to which I find there is a certain amount of doubt, is very well defined in the preamble—
"Whereas it is expedient that persons requiring nursing assistance should be enabled to distinguish qualified from unqualified nurses."
The Bill really does not go beyond that. It enables the public to distinguish qualified from unqualified nurses, and that is no less an advantage to the public than it is to the nurses themselves. Then you will see that there are certain temporary provisions in Sections 3, 4 and 5; they provide for a temporary or provisional council to register persons already in practice as trained nurses in order that a constituency may be formed
1196
which would elect representatives of the nursing profession on the regular council. The most important of the permanent provisions is Section 6 which proposes that a council should be incorporated by the name of the general Council of Nursing Education and Registration of the United Kingdom.
I hope it that is not necessary to go any further into detail. I have heard it suggested that the actual composition of the council which is proposed might be the subject of criticism, but I venture to think that that is a matter of detail which really does not affect the principle of the Bill, with which alone we are concerned at the present moment. But I might say, parenthetically, first of all that the number of representatives has been reduced from thirty-one, as it appeared in the original Bill before the House of Commons, to nineteen. This was done in deference to the views of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Secondly, it has to be borne in mind that three classes have to be represented—the nurses, the medical practitioners, and the public. At the same time it is necessary to provide representation for England and Wales, for Scotland, and for Ireland. I think, however, that the exact proportion of representatives of each class, and the adaptation of that representation to the three countries, is a matter which can be discussed in Committee if your Lordships are good enough to allow the Bill to proceed so far.
I will only reiterate that the question which is before us is simply this, whether the State shall do for nurses what it has done for kindred professions, and enable the public to distinguish the qualified from the unqualified. I should like to explain, in view of another possible misapprehension, that there is no desire—and I am advised there is no possibility as the Bill is drafted—to interfere with the liberty of contract between the sick and any person attending them for hire. All that the Bill would do, or could do, as it is at present drafted, is to protect the title "registered nurse" for the use of those who have attained a minimum standard as defined by the authority. I trust I have said enough to induce your Lordships to give a Second Reading to

1197
this Bill, and thus, I venture to think, to give encouragement to that noble profession in which women display from day to day skill, courage, devotion to duty, and self-sacrifice well comparable with those of sailors and soldiers in times of danger and warfare, and in which they set an example to our race of the highest qualities of Christian humanity.
Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord who introduced this Bill has any figures with regard to the total number of nurses that exist and the number whom it is anticipated will become registered under this Bill. It is very desirable that the idea should not get about that anyone is good enough to nurse the poor, and that we only want to register a small class of nurses for the hospitals and the upper classes. That is one of the dangers of the provisions in this Bill, and it is one of the points which will have to be carefully guarded against.
LORD AMPTHILL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interrupting him. I thought I had answered his objection in almost my last sentence, when I said that the Bill was so drawn that it could not interfere with liberty of contract between the sick and those whom they engage to attend upon them. Therefore, district nurses and Poor Law nurses would not be affected at all. It would be a case of registering nurses with a certain standard of qualification and not of interfering with others.
LORD KINNAIRD: Many of those interested in district nursing feel strongly that in the case of that class of nurses, who, for all practical purposes, are fully qualified nurses and do their work thoroughly well, it would be very hard for them to be described as "unqualified." The difficulty will be increased of raising funds for district nursing if the district nurses are, under this Bill, to be "unqualified"; and, if they receive the necessary training to become registered, they will be less qualified than they are at present to do a great deal of the district nursing work. Many of those
1198
who have obtained the higher class of training are not equally as qualified as they were before for doing this kind of work and for looking after the poor in their homes. I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I think that when we come to details there will be many matters to be considered. It would be very hard upon the class to whom I have referred, and who do very valuable work, if they were described as unqualified, and I hope before the Bill leaves your Lordship's House steps will be taken to prevent these disadvantages and disqualifications being put upon a very deserving class of women.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, it is a little unfortunate that a subject of this considerable importance should have come before us in such a thin House, because I do not think that the numbers here present correctly indicate the interest which is taken in the subject. But the fact does, I think, add greatly to our difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to what course we ought to take with regard to this Bill. This question of registration has, as we all know, been before the country for some considerable time. The principle was approved by an important Select Committee which was held on the subject, and in considering the whole question we ought to bear the fact in mind that the Report of the Committee did undoubtedly approve of the principle of the registration of nurses.
When the matter came before me two years ago when I was Lord President. I said, in reply to a deputation, that I did not think it would be much use attempting to proceed with the matter until there was some practical unanimity among nurses themselves, and also—which was of equal importance—the medical profession as to the manner in which the thing could be done, because it is one thing to approve of the idea of registration and another thing to attempt to put it into practice. I do not know, and I have no reason to suppose, that that requisite degree of agreement has been arrived at. The noble Lord who proposed the Second Reading of the

1199
Bill spoke of the practical unanimity of nurses. I have no doubt that a very considerable majority of nurses are in favour of registration, and would undoubtedly be in favour of the kind of registration in this particular Bill, because it gives nurses practically the entire control of the council with a small sprinkling of the medical element. But when we come to the medical profession, I take it the case is very different.
The noble Lord said that the medical profession were practically unanimous in favour of the registration of nurses. When this matter was before the Select Committee a protest was made by a number of people, including several hundred doctors, against the principle of registration, among them being Lord Lister, Dr. Allchin, Sir James Reid, Sir Thomas Barlow, Sir William Bennett, Dr. Watson Cheyne, Dr. Ferrier, and a great many more, and there was a second list including a great many other extremely well-known doctors. Therefore to talk of the practical unanimity of the medical profession on the subject seems to me to be going considerably beyond the mark.
I do not think that this matter ought to be by any means dismissed, because I believe that a very considerable majority of the nursing profession do desire to see some form of registration, and I quite agree with everything the noble Lord said as to the deference we ought to pay to the members of so honourable and respected a profession. What exactly the nurses are going to get out of this particular form of registration is another matter. The noble Lord on the cross benches drew attention to the fact that a considerable number of nurses who really cannot be called untrained or incompetent would have something like a stigma put upon them by this Bill, and the Local Government Board no doubt would have something to say also on that subject with regard to the nurses whom they employ. Then the noble Lord spoke of a case where two women were charged with murder and were afterwards hanged, and in connection with which placards were displayed, in the street announcing: "Nurses charged with murder." No amount of registration will prevent that.
1200
You will not be able to confine the title of nurse to these particular registered ladies. There is no penalty in the Bill for any woman calling herself a nurse or wearing the uniform of a nurse, and therefore, I am afraid the profession will not escape that unfortunate possibility, to say nothing of the fact that if a person was going to commit murder the fact that she had been trained for three years in a hospital would not prevent her doing so.
But there is another side to this question, and that is the interest of the public in it. The other day, as your Lordships remember, a Bill for establishing a Directory of Nurses was thrown out on Second Reading by a very considerable majority. Looking at this matter, as I think I do, impartially, I am bound to say that, so far as the public is concerned, this registration will not be of much more, if of any more, value than the lists of names in a Directory. Unless you can devise some means for ensuring a continual guarantee of the efficiency and character of a nurse, the mere fact that she passed certain examinations a certain number of years ago is not much use to the patient who is going to engage her. So far as it is of any use, that bare knowledge would be equally well supplied by the Directory. That is a very important, and, I think, a very crucial point in connection with this Bill. No attempt is made, so far as I can see, in this Bill for anything to be done beyond a statement of the fact that a nurse has at some time or other been efficiently trained, and she is asked to pay £5 for that statement. It is also true that if she is convicted, or appears in the Divorce Court, or does something which brings her name prominently before public notice, she will be struck off the Register, but there is no guarantee that she has not gone downhill in other ways, that she has not lost her efficiency or even her character, and therefore the public must realise that if anything of this kind be done there is no more guarantee of the conduct or even of the capacity of the nurse at the moment at which she is engaged than the fact that she passed certain examinations, five, ten or fifteen years ago. Therefore, from the public point of view, the Bill does not seem

1201
to me to do very much, more than the Directory Bill did which your Lordships refused to consider.
Under these circumstances, my Lords, I confess I rather question whether at this period of the session it is worth while to read the Bill a second time. I have no kind of hostility to its principle, as I have often said, and I should like to see it carried into effect; but I have a certain abhorrence of the practice of reading Bills a second time in this House when there is no prospect of continuing them, more especially in such a very thin House as there is here to-night. I think we ought to demand a little more evidence of the interest of the House in the subject before we can pledge the House of Lords to a certain extent, because it must not be forgotten that a Second Reading, after all, does mean something, to the principle of the Bill. In that matter I am very much in your Lordships' hands. I certainly should not desire to move the rejection of the Bill; far from it; but under the circumstances I confess I question whether your Lordships would do wisely to read the Bill a second time to-night.
THB MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the condition of our Benches this evening is not favourable to the final discussion of so important a question as that with which this Bill deals, but I think I should use that rather as an argument against the summary rejection of the Bill. On the other hand, I think if your Lordships decide to give a Second Reading to the Bill we are entitled to claim that in doing so we are by no means committed to an acceptance of the full scheme which is embodied in it.
Speaking for myself, and for myself only, I may say that I am upon the whole in sympathy with the main object of my noble friend behind me. The principle of his Bill amounts, as I understand it, to no more than this, that he desires to afford to the public some means of ascertaining whether a woman who calls herself a nurse has or has not obtained at any rate a minimum of experience and training in her profession. That seems to me to be reasonable, both from the point of view of the nurses,
1202
and from the point of view of the public who employ them. What are the alternatives before us? We may leave things exactly as they are at the present time. I must say that a strong case has been made for the view that the present condition of things, under which the public has no guarantee whatever as to the fitness of a person who calls herself a nurse, is very unsatisfactory. Then we have the alternative embodied in the Directory of Nurses Bill, which your Lordships rejected for reasons which were fully stated at the time. There remains the third course, that of registration, and that has certainly received a good deal of official encouragement from the medical profession and from the nursing profession itself.
The noble Earl said with some force: "What is the value of the kind of registration which this Bill contemplates?" I certainly should not over-rate its value, but I think it is worth something. It is not a complete guarantee of the nurse's qualifications, but it is a guarantee of something. It proves that she has, at any rate, during her life acquired the ground-work of a knowledge of the most important elements of her profession, those elements which are really most indispensable to the proper performance of her duties. It is perfectly true that registration affords no guarantee that the nurse possesses those other qualities for which we look, and so often look not in vain, in members of the nursing profession; but, then, surely it will be just as possible for people after this Bill has passed, supposing it to pass, to satisfy themselves as to those other points—as to the nurse's character, demeanour, and so forth—as it is at the present moment for them when they employ a nurse who has no certificate and has never been registered. I think moreover it may be fairly argued that those technical attainments without which a nurse would be unable to obtain a certificate are, in fact, those which are most indispensable for her efficiency.
The noble Earl says that the nurse's certificate would not be a guarantee of her continuing fitness. This is perfectly true, but it does not profess to be a guarantee of her continuing fitness. What it professes to show is that she has

1203
at one time acquired that groundwork of knowledge upon which my noble friends insists. What, then, are we to do with this Bill? I should, I confess, be very sorry if we were to reject it. The idea of taking a division upon so important a subject in so thin a House as this seems to me almost out of the question. I cannot help thinking that the proper course, in the circumstances, is to give the Bill a Second Reading, upon the assumption that by doing so we are committed to no more than what I would call the bare principle of the measure. There will be other opportunities of discussing points of detail in Committee, and there will be another opportunity, of which we in this House very often take advantage, for a further discussion upon the Motion to go into Committee. If, therefore, your Lordships are good enough to desire to know my opinion, I would venture to suggest that my noble friend's Motion should not be opposed and that we should reserve to ourselves the right to continue this discussion under more favourable circumstances.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I do not rise to discuss this Bill. There is much to be said in its favour, and much to criticise; but I would suggest to your Lordships, in view of the time and the state of the House, that the debate should be adjourned. If a division were challenged the number of Peers present is too small to allow of a division being taken, and what would happen would amount to what in the House of Commons would be called a count out. I should have been glad myself to have said a little on the motion for the Second Reading, and I would urge that the debate should be adjourned. I will formally move that, but if the feeling of the House is against me, I will not press the motion.
Moved, "That the debate be adjourned."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, on that motion I should like to say that it would seem to me a pity to adjourn the debate. I cannot see what the object
1204
of that course can be. I have not heard of anybody else who was desirous of speaking on the Second Reading, but, as the noble Marquess the Leader' of the Opposition said, there will be further opportunities of discussing the Bill, both on principle and in detail. If there were any appreciable number of Peers who wished to speak I should be entirely for an adjournment, but I think in all the circumstances, the best course would be to allow the Bill to be read a second time to-day.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I think we might get over the difficulty by adopting the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. As we are allowed, I understand, by the rules of the House, to make Second Reading Speeches on the Motion to go into Committee, I think that covers the ground, and that we might very well accept the bare principle of the Bill to-day. I should like to speak upon the Bill myself, as it will affect the district nurses in Ireland.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I withdraw my Motion.
Motion for the adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order). An Amendment made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 131.)

COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read and discharged.
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.