Lords Sitting of 8 July 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill; South West Suburban Water 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.
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a. Amendments made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Leeds Corporation Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; further amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Doncaster Corporation Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London County Council (Money) Bill.—Committed.
South West Suburban Water Bill.—Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Ards Railways Bill; Holderness Water Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill.—House in Committee (according to Order). Bills reported without amendment. Standing Committee negatived, and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
South West Suburban Water Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Manchester Corporation Bill and other Bills, do form the
1594
Select Committee for the consideration of the South West Suburban Water Bill; read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
Manchester Corporation Bill; Burnley Corporation Bill; Blackburn Corporation Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Monk Bretton be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Stradbroke; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4057. United States (States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana).
  No. 4058. Zanzibar (Zanzibar and Pemba).

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for training of teachers for secondary schools; Regulations for the training of teachers of domestic subjects (in force from 1st August, 1908).
  WHISKEY AND OTHER POTABLE SPIRITS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Interim Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into and report upon certain matters connected with the manufacture and sale of whiskey and other potable spirits; with Minutes of Evidence.

  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  (Explosions at Benwell and Whitehaven Collieries)—Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, edited by R. A. S. Redmayne, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Mines, on the explosions which occurred at the Benwell Colliery on 19th March, 1907, and the Whitehaven Colliery on 26th November, 1907. (Explosion at Washington "Glebe" Colliery)—Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by J. B. Atkinson, M.Sc., His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, on the circumstances attending an explosion

  1595
  which, occurred at Washington "Glebe" Colliery on 25th February, 1908.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  Report of the progress of the Ordnance Survey to the 31st March, 1908, presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a, and to be printed. [No. 132.]
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved, as an addition to Clause 1, which ran—
  "The proviso at the end of subsection 3 of Section 1 of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, shall not apply in any case where the tenant consents in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioner,"
  the insertion of the following words—
  "Provided that the tenant shall sign such consent in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, who shall attach their names thereto, and when so signed and witnessed shall be filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission, notice of such filing being, in the time and manner prescribed, given to the landlord of the land to which the consent applies, and published in two successive issues of a newspaper circulating in the district in which such land is situate; and provided further that such consent shall not be acted upon if the said landlord, or any other person interested in or having a claim upon the said lands, shall, after having an opportunity of being heard in the time and manner prescribed, satisfy the Judicial Commissioner that the tenant was compelled or induced to give such consent by intimidation or other unlawful means."
  In moving his Amendment he recalled the fact that in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill it was stated that
  1596
  noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House refrained from opposing the Bill in the interests of freedom. It was held that the bona fide planter tenants to whom the Bill applied should have conferred upon them the rights that all free men should enjoy in civilised and well-ordered communities. His Amendment was conceived in the same spirit, and directed to the same or kindred ends. If the planters were to have those rights which should belong to free men in such communities as he had mentioned, then protection ought to be thrown round them, so that they could exercise their rights freely, without being driven to abandon them by any form of coercion or intimidation.
  In order that the meaning of the Amendment might be appreciated, he would state exactly what the position of the bona fide planter tenant was under existing legislation. The Act of last year enabled the Estates Commissioners to acquire land compulsorily; it denied to them the right to acquire tenanted land, save where the tenant was a new tenant who was not cultivating his farm in a bona fide manner. If he were a worthless planter, idle and neglectful, they could acquire his land; but if he were a bona fide farmer managing his holding according to the custom of cultivation in the district they could not. The present Bill was to enable the tenant to consent to the acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners and when he had given that consent he was in precisely the same position as all the other new tenants. The Estates Commissioners could buy the land, but they could not purchase from him the tenant's interest. What they could do was this—they could evict him, giving him a farm of equivalent value to that of which they had dispossessed him, or full compensation in money. That was exactly his position.
  In the present Bill it was provided that the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act of last year should not apply in any case where the tenant consented in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners. How the assent was to be given save that it was to be given in writing, where

  1597
  it was to be given, when it was to be given, under what conditions it was to be given, or under what protection it was to be given was nowhere stated. It had occurred to him that it was imperatively necessary that some effort should be made to prevent these planters being made the object of coercion or intimidation. What was the position? The planter held land for which some of his neighbours who were evicted tenants were lusting, and observations, to which their Lordships' attention had been called on the last occasion, had been made by the Leader of the Nationalist Party, which, if he had been correctly reported, could mean little less than an exhortation and an incitement to attack and intimidate the bona fide planters and drive them from the homes they now occupied.
  He would contrast the absence of all safeguards in reference to these men with the number of safeguards that were put round the Irish tenant when dealing with his landlord. But no coercion that the landlord could employ could be for an instant compared with that cruel and terrible form of intimidation commonly called boycotting. The crushing nature of that method of intimidation nobody could appreciate who had not seen the misery and sorrow it had brought on its victims. It was expected, when the Act of 1881 was passed, enabling tenants to get fair rents fixed, that many rents would be fixed by agreement between landlord and tenant. It was, however, found necessary to pass rules, to one or two of which he would take the opportunity of calling their Lordships' attention. It was provided that in all cases in which a tenant was a party to any agreement under the Land Act, or to any consent in writing to any document under that Act, his signature should be witnessed by a Commissioner for taking affidavits, or by other persons named in the Act, but no person in the employment of the landlord was a competent witness. If it was necessary to secure that the tenant was a perfectly free agent when he consented to settle a rent with his landlord, it was doubly necessary to see that the bona fide tenant planters were free agents when they
  1598
  were made the object of such remarks as those of Mr. Redmond, to which reference had been made. There were other rules. By Rule 143 power was reserved to any person interested in the farm to apply to have the agreement set aside on the ground of fraud or duress. If this was necessary in such a case, surely it was reasonable that some provision should be made to secure that the consent required from a bona fide planter before he could be turned out of his holding should be a free consent. Rule 169 was practically similar in effect. Therefore they had in Ireland a system of legislation in which the necessity was recognised that when a tenant came to parting with his rights he should be surrounded by every precaution to secure that he was acting as a free agent; and he contended that this was a thousand times more necessary in dealings under this Bill.
  His Amendment was, to a great extent, drafted on the lines of the rules to which he had referred. He admitted that the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Donoughmore was more logical than his own, but his (Lord Atkinson's) Amendment was the simpler. The Estates Commissioners acquired the land, evicted the tenants, and paid compensation. The Commissioners, therefore, were one of the parties to the negotiations and the bargain, and it seemed to him preposterous to refer to them for decision the question whether the other party was intimidated. That would be doing what was done to some degree in the Act, but which had a peculiar abhorrence for him—it allowed one of the parties to be a judge directly in his own case. Love of gain was not the only passion that warped human judgment; pride, vanity, and a desire to carry some idea had often equally actuated people in, this direction. Though the Estates Commissioners had no pecuniary interest in the matter, they were not fit persons to decide whether the bargain into which they themselves had entered was a free one.
  His Amendment provided for the decision of the question by an independent authority, the Judicial Commissioner. The adoption of that course would not impede, matters in any way, and would

  1599
  prevent a man being judge in his own case. It might be that the protection would not be altogether effectual. Intimidation such as existed in Ireland was often a subtle and all-pervading thing, alienating a man's friends, following his path, thwarting his action, lurking in every corner and cranny of his life, and no machinery that could be set up would effectually protect him from it. But the more subtle its character the more imperative was it the duty of their Lordships to provide means by which the tenants might exercise in some degree the rights of free men. The noble Earl who would reply on behalf of the Government might say that this could be done by rules. That would not be strictly accurate. Rules might regulate the mode in which jurisdiction was exercised, but jurisdiction could not be conferred by rules. There was no provision on the Statute-book which enabled the Judicial Commissioner to act in these matters, and, therefore, it was necessary, if he was to have that jurisdiction, that a provision to that affect should be introduced into the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'Commissioners' to insert the words 'Provided that the tenant shall sign such consent in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, who shall attach their names thereto, and when so signed and witnessed shall be filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission, notice of such filing being, in the time and manner prescribed, given to the landlord of the land to which the consent applies, and published in two successive issues of a newspaper circulating in the district in which such land is situate; and provided further that such consent shall not be acted upon if the said landlord, or any other person interested in or having a claim upon the said lands, shall, after having an opportunity of being heard in the time and manner prescribed, satisfy the Judicial Commissioner that the tenant was compelled or induced to give such consent by intimidation or other unlawful means.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the issue raised by the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord in a clear and exhaustive speech is a very simple one. The object of this Bill is to prevent a planter from being coerced or intimidated into remaining on his farm when he wishes to go. The object of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment
  1600
  is to prevent his being coerced or intimidated into going if he wishes to stay. One hopes that occasions of this kind are not likely often to arise. As the noble and learned Lord has stated, the inducements offered by the Act as it stands are very considerable. A man either receives an equivalent farm elsewhere or else he receives the full value of his holding if he likes to go out of farming altogether.
  The noble and learned Lord spoke of intimidation, which I abhor as much as he does, but, of course, it is impossible to overlook the fact that no law, though it may protect a man from violence, can protect him from unpopularity and from the hundred disagreeable incidents which accompany local unpopularity even though no violence be used. Consequently, I think it, may fairly be said that in most cases the inducements for a planter to go are at any rate considerable. The noble and learned Lord desires to ensure that the planter should not be intimidated into going, and, so far as the earlier words of his Amendment are concerned, we agree that there can be no possible objection to the tenant signing such consent in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, who shall attach their names thereto, or to the filing of the consent. I would suggest that, after the word "witnessed," the words "the said consent" should be inserted, because, as the Amendment stands, it looks almost as if either the tenant or the witnesses were to be filed in the office of the Land Commission, which would be possibly a painful and certainly a tedious process for them. There we should like to stop. We think that that ensures the necessary formality and publicity which the noble and learned Lord would desire to give to the tenant's act of renouncing his farm. We do not think it is necessary for the notice to be published in two successive issues of a local newspaper. That adds to the expense connected with the matter, without, in our opinion, contributing anything very material to the security of the tenant.
  Then comes the question of the appeal. I fully admit that, if you are to have an appeal at all, the appeal suggested by the noble and learned Lord is the best

  1601
  that could be devised. It is infinitely preferable, in our opinion, to the very much more cumbrous process of a double appeal suggested by the noble Earl on the front bench opposite, which we think would really stultify the action of the Bill altogether. But even as regards the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, unobjectionable if you will in itself, I should like to appeal to the noble Lords opposite whether it is really necessary. It must be remembered that it is bound to involve considerable delay and necessitate great expense. It will be necessary, I suppose, to make rules limiting some time within which a landlord may lodge an appeal. I confess that there is something to my mind almost ludicrous in the notion of a judicial inquiry taking place in a case whore a man asserts that he has not been intimidated, and somebody else asserts for him that he has. I can find no parallel of that in any sort of judicial procedure that takes place in any civilised country.
  I should like to put it to your Lordships whether this appeal is really necessary at all. I can quite understand that it may be argued that this act on the part of the planter should be seriously and somewhat ceremoniously carried out, but how it is possible to go behind an act of that kind and to insist that the man is being intimidated when ex hypothesi he says he is not, is a matter which, I confess, passes my comprehension. I hope, therefore, that on consideration the noble and learned Lord would be willing to move only the first part of his Amendment down to the words "Land Commission," and would, in consideration of the great trouble to which the parties would be put if the whole Amendment was carried, consent to withdraw the rest.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE,who had given notice of an Amendment to amend Lord Atkinson's Amendment by leaving out the further proviso and inserting after the word "situate," the following words—
  "And provided further that the said consent shall not be acted upon if the landlord or any other person having an interest in or claim upon the said lands shall satisfy the Estates Commissioners, after having had at the time
  1602
  and in the manner prescribed an opportunity of being heard, that the tenant was compelled or induced to give such consent by intimidation or other unlawful means, and the determination by the Estates Commissioners of this question shall be deemed and taken to be a determination by them of a question arising under provisions imposing restrictions on the acquisition of land within the meaning of Section 2, subsection 11, of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907, and shall be subject to appeal accordingly,"
  said he did not think the noble Earl in his final words had fairly described the position. The noble Earl had said the position was a ridiculous one that when a man had said he had not been intimidated somebody else should come forward and say that he had. But did the planter say he had not been intimidated? Unless the Government had in their mind some form of consent that the planter was to be made to give to the effect that he had not been intimidated when he gave his consent, he failed entirely to see the force of the noble Earl's argument. Their whole contention was that this consent might be obtained in some cases by intimidation, and it was in order to safeguard the planter himself in such case that they asked their Lordships to give this appeal. His reply to the noble Earl's Question, Was this appeal really necessary? was "Yes," and that it was more necessary now, owing to the administration of the law in Ireland by His Majesty's Government, than it was twelve months ago. A very peculiar case was mentioned in The Times about ten days ago. The statements made so surprised him that he took the trouble to obtain a copy of the local paper which contained an almost verbatim report of the case, which was concerned with cattle-driving on the De Montalt estate at Ballintemple, and the claim for compensation by the victims of that proceeding. He did not know whether it was as the result of cattle-driving or not, but the land was now to be sold, and Mr. Ryan, the solicitor for the victims, made the remarkable statement that his clients—
  "Were, on the division of the demesne lands, to be allotted a portion of them by the Estates Commissioners, but the landholders resolutely opposed the Hickeys getting any portion of the estate, and the result was that the Land Commissioners gave way to them, and the Hickeys got none of the land, for the Commissioners pandered to the Crown."

  1603
  That action was a practical encouragement of cattle-driving. That was the spirit in which the law was being administered at this moment, and it was this which made some such Amendment as this absolutely necessary.
  LORD ASHBOURNEadmitted that if a man denied that he had been intimidated it was not easy to get over that. There was nothing so hard to ascertain in districts where feeling ran high as whether or not a man was acting as an absolutely free agent or was yielding to the insidious form of intimidation so well known in Ireland. The provision in the Bill that the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act of last year should not apply in any case where the tenant consented in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners was a rather bald one. The mere consent in writing was hardly sufficient, and could not without an addition of some kind be deemed satisfactory. He gathered that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies practically admitted that, for he had stated that the first part of Lord Atkinson's Amendment, providing that the tenant should sign the consent in the presence of two witnesses who should attach their names thereto, was conceived in such a reasonable spirit that he was prepared to give a ready assent to it. He (Lord Ashbourne) did not suppose it would be a common case at all, but it was conceivable that there might be cases where, although the man had signed the consent in the presence of witnesses and expressed his desire to accept the terms offered him and to go, objection could still be made that that act was not quite free and that at some point or other undue pressure was exercised. It was therefore claimed to be reasonable to provide means in such a case for the matter to be investigated and decided by a fair tribunal.
  LORD CLONBROCKtrusted that the Government might be induced to accept the Amendment in its entirety. No one doubted that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies condemned intimidation as much as any one in the House. The object of the Amendment
  1604
  was to prevent intimidation. The fact that a planter had given in writing his consent to go did not at all imply that he had given it of his own free will, and it was perfectly legitimate to inquire whether direct intimidation had been applied Owing to the exceedingly light and airy manner in which agitation had been treated by His Majesty's Government, intimidation prevailed very widely in Ireland. The mere placing on record of the written consent in the office of the Estates Commissioners would be an absolutely nugatory proceeding, the more especially as the bargain was being made with them. Noble Lords from Ireland desired that there should be an appeal to some independent authority such as the Judicial Commissioner. He hoped the House would adopt the Amendment and reserve freedom of action to these planters.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid the Amendment would not be necessary but for the open intimidation and boycotting existing in Ireland. The whole spirit in which their Lordships debated the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act of last year was that the bona fide planters should be adequately protected; but in the Bill now before them it was provided that the proviso inserted in the Act of last year for the protection of the planters should not apply in any case where the tenant consented in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners. The noble Earl apparently did not object to the provision in Lord Atkinson's Amendment about the two witnesses, but only to the publication in the newspapers. Noble Lords might be inclined to concede that point, because personally he did not attach great importance to the newspaper publication. The question of appeal, however, was more important. It had been fully debated last year, and now, when an Amendment was moved to protect the planters, why should not the right of appeal to the Judicial Commissioner be granted? No argument had been submitted against the right of appeal. The truth was that the present Government wanted to fire out the planters as quickly as possible. It was much better to be candid about the matter. Personally, he thought that there would not be many

  1605
  appeals; but, at any rate, the chance of making an appeal should be given. He suggested that "any person interested" might be a better phrase to adopt than that in the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am afraid I am not convinced by the arguments of noble Lords opposite although I fully recognise that what they have in their minds is the interest of the tenant. If I believed that this Amendment would have a serious effect in protecting or making happier people who otherwise would be intimidated, I could not refuse to accept it. But what is really going to happen suppose this Amendment is carried? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a man has been intimidated into signing a consent. After having announced his intention of leaving, is it likely that, before Mr. Justice Wylie, he will recant and say he was intimidated, and go back to the occupation of his holding? It seems the most improbable thing to happen in practice that could be conceived. On the other hand, you have the alternative possibility, in every case where the planter wants to go, of the landlord who has a strong personal objection to the Bill, putting this unhappy man into Court, the tenant asseverating that he wants to go and the landlord assuring the Court that he ought to be allowed to remain.
  LORD ATKINSONwas of opinion that as the landlord would be mulcted in costs such a case would not be likely to occur.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not sure that all landlords would be deterred by that fact. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot accept the Amendment. I am anxious not to put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing, which I should have to do if the Amendment before us at the moment was the one standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore; but I am bound to say I cannot hold out any hope of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary accepting this Amendment in another place.
  LORD ATKINSONexpressed his willingness to omit the word "landlord" and to insert the words "persons inter-
  1606
  ested His Amendment was not conceived in the interest of the landlord. The term "landlord" came in because he had, in drafting his Amendment, copied the rules to which he had referred.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not take it that that would lead to any change in practice, because the words "persons interested" would include the landlord. Therefore, I do not see much object in striking out the landlord in this case.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I take it there is no doubt as to the position which the great body of the Members of this House desire to take up in reference to this question of the bona fide planter. We desire that he should be effectually protected; but I think I may add that we only desire to protect him if he himself wishes to be protected. I take that as our point of departure. Then arises the question what evidence is to be regarded as sufficient to show that the bona fide planter really does desire to invoke protection.
  In the Bill as presented to the House the simple consent of the tenant in writing was to be sufficient. On this side of the House, at any rate, we do not think that so imperfect a guarantee as that is sufficient for the purpose. To rely on the mere signature of the tenant, given under circumstances of which no one is very fully aware, would be, indeed, a very slight precaution. It will be within the recollection of many of us that, in the case of Lord Clanricarde's estate, signatures were appended by a great many of the tenants to statements recording their strong objection to be moved elsewhere, and that within a few days we had in our possession other signatures from the same tenants recording their desire to be allowed to accept the terms offered them by the Estates Commissioners. Therefore, I venture to think it is clearly established that the mere signature of the tenant by itself is not sufficient. I think we may also call attention to the argument used with so much effect by my noble and learned friend behind me, when he reminded the House that whenever the tenant is called upon or is allowed to part with any portion of his rights to his landlord, the

  1607
  transaction is shielded by any number of precautions of the very kind which my noble and learned friend desires to introduce in the present case.
  I must say I was a little astonished when I heard the noble Earl who leads the House say to us, at the beginning of this discussion, that whereas we desired that the tenant should not be intimidated into leaving his farm, noble Lords opposite desired that he should not be intimidated into remaining upon it, the suggestion being, I presume, that the kind of pressure which the landlord who desires to retain a bona fide tenant can put upon him is comparable to the kind of pressure which is put upon these people by the Land League when they desire to drive them from their holdings. If I may be allowed to say so, I think that, shows a certain absence of perspective in the view with which these questions are regarded by noble Lords opposite.
  The Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend has three limbs. In the first place, he desires that the consent of the tenant of the tenant should be given in the presence of witnesses who are to attach their names thereto, the consent being filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission. That, I understand, is accepted by His Majesty's Government, and I gladly acknowledge the indication of their admission that the case of my noble and learned friend is to that extent a strong one. Then we come to the second limb of the Amendment, which is to the effect that notice of the filing of the consent is to be given to the landlord and published in two successive issues of a local newspaper. I think I caught a suggestion from my noble friend behind me that he and those who act with him do not attach great importance to that particular part of the proposal. I therefore do not dwell upon it.
  Then I come to by far the most important part of the Amendment—namely, that which provides that in these cases there shall be an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner. I observed with satisfaction that the noble Earl admitted that if there was to be an appeal that was the proper appeal to provide; and, personally, I should prefer that appeal to
  1608
  the one suggested by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore. I ask myself, however, whether the appeal thus provided is really one which is likely to be of any great substantial value, because it seems to me clear that if precautions of this kind are to be mere paper precautions and are not to be of substantial value the fewer of them we put into this Bill the better for all concerned. My noble friend Lord Mayo admitted, I think, that appeals of this kind would be very rare. We may, therefore, assume that we are only dealing with quite a small number of cases.
  Let us consider what is likely to happen in that small number of cases. You appeal to the Judicial Commissioner and you endeavour to show that the tenant has been subjected to some form of coercion. Upon whose evidence are you going to rely in order to establish your case? Remember that it is one in which the tenant ex hypothesi has been effectually intimidated. He has been intimidated up to the point of putting his name to a document in which he formally states that he desires to give up his farm. Is it very likely that after he has done that, after he has been so effectually coerced that he has given his consent with all these formalities—is it very likely that you will get him to recant that consent before the Judicial Commissioner? I doubt it very much. Then let us suppose that you are going to rely, not upon the evidence of the tenant, but upon the evidence of other parties. The landlord produces evidence to show that there has been cattle-driving in the neighbourhood, and that the tenant and his family have been boycotted. The evidence may be unanswerable, but the fact will remain that the tenant himself desires to leave his farm and to go to a farm in another part of the country. It will be impossible for the Judicial Commissioner or for anybody else, so it seems to me, to determine whether the consent of the tenant is really due to the boycotting and the persecution, or to the fact that he has been offered, as we know some of these people have been offered, by the Estates Commissioners extremely liberal inducements to move elsewhere.
  I frankly confess that, much as I regret to differ from my noble friends who sit

  1609
  behind me, it does not seem to me that this part of the Amendment is likely to serve any substantially good purpose, and, for that reason, I really would put it to them whether they might not be content with the earlier portion of it, perhaps fortified by some other words, and whether, at any rate, they might not stop short of insisting either upon the full-blown Amendment of my noble friend Lord Donoughmore or upon the latter part of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD CLONBROCKpointed out that they had to consider not only the case of a man who had, whether from intimidation or not, given his consent, but the effect on the people round about. What they desired to do was to make it as difficult as possible for a man to be intimidated, and if the people who were inclined to intimidate knew that there was an appeal and that the whole matter would be threshed out from the beginning before a fair tribunal, they might not be so ready in indulge in intimidation. With such a provision as that contained in the Amendment, intimidation, though it might be successful in the end, would not be so easy to practise.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsubmitted, in regard to what had been said by Lord Lansdowne, that there were planters plucky enough to stand up and say they had been intimidated into giving their consent. If these planters did not possess that determination, he could assure their Lordships that many of them would not be where they were now. The very word "planter" was well known in the history of Ireland and spoke for itself. He admitted that the cases might not be many, but held that that did not make their argument any the weaker. The few men who had taken up this position and were farming their land in a husband-like manner were entitled to every protection. There was an important principle involved, and he hoped his noble friends from Ireland would divide on the Amendment.
  LORD ATKINSONcalled attention to the fact that his Amendment was not confined to intimidation. Other unlawful means might be resorted to, such
  1610
  as bribery and violence, to coerce a tenant into giving his consent. It was perfectly absurd to suppose that a person who had no evidence to bring before the Judicial Commissioner would proffer a charge of this kind when he was certain to be beaten and to have to pay the costs. He did not suggest that the Amendment set up perfect machinery. If they were never to legislate unless they could devise perfect machinery they would never legislate at all. The value of the proviso in the Amendment was that in cases of gross intimidation means would be open for resorting to a tribunal to defeat it, and to prevent the intimidators reaping the fruits of their illegal act. For himself, he did not see any great difficulty in the Judicial Commissioner's ascertaining whether a man was acting of his own free will or not. For instance, if a man said he had made up his mind not to go and was then boycotted, and his cattle driven, and on the third day signed a consent, would any one have difficulty in saying that that consent was extracted by intimidation? Although it might not frequently be resorted to, the existence of this appeal would be of great value.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): I propose to put the Amendment down to the words "Land Commission" which, I understand, is accepted by the Government.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Would the noble and learned Lord agree to insert after the word "witness," the words "the said consent"?
  LORD ATKINSON: I think it is quite unnecessary, but I have no objection to it.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESThe Amendment is to add the words, "Provided that the tenant shall sign such consent in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, who shall attach their names thereto, and when so signed and witnessed the said consent shall be filed as a record in the office of the Land Commission."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Question I now have to put to the Committee is that the words "notice of such filing," etc., down to the end of the Amendment, be there inserted.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived; the Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 133).
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted."
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not Contents, 36.

  CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Knutsford, V.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Somerset, D.

  Portman, V.

  Harris, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Heneage, L.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Hindlip, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Hylton, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Addington, L.

  James, L.

  Camden, M.

  Alverstone, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Zetland, M.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Atkinson, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Cairns, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Cathcart, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Newton, L.

  Devon, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Castlemaine, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Halsbury, E.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Rathmore, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Savile, L.

  Mayo, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Digby, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Douglas, L. ((E. Home.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Dunboyne, L. ([Teller.]

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Cross V.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Stalbridge, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Forester, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) [Teller.]

  Wemyas, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Iveagh, V.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Wolverhampton, V.

  Headley, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Allendale, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Craven, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Lochee, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Armitstead, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Cromer, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Denman, L. (Teller.]

  Manners, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Faber, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Althorpe, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Weardale, L.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Haversham, L.

  Welby, L.

  ECONOMIES IN THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  LORD LOVATrose to submit a preliminary list of minor and vexatious economies adversely affecting the efficiency of the Territorial Army; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to call attention of your

  1613
  Lordships to certain economies at present being made in the Territorial Army, which I think are rather unfortunate and hardly bear out some of the promises made by His Majesty's Government when the Territorial Army Act was brought in. We were told that the Territorial Army was to be reduced in numbers—and reduced it certainly has been—but that it was to be very much increased in efficiency. We were also told that it was to be complete in every part, and would have mobilisation arrangements sufficient to enable it to take the field at once. I regret to say that the administration of the Force so far hardly seems to tend towards that end, and unless an alteration of policy is adopted with regard to the economies which are at present being effected, we shall not get the efficiency anticipated.
  The whole question of the efficiency of the Territorial Army depends upon the officers and non-commissioned officers. That is, and always will be, the weak part of any partly amateur Army. Yet one of the first acts of the Government was to abolish a most excellent institution—the Yeomanry school at Netheravon. This school gave a most excellent training to Yeomanry officers, and was well spoken of throughout. The men there worked keenly and the administration was good, picked Cavalry officers being detailed to carry on the training work. At the present moment there is no Yeomanry school, and these officers have to go to be trained to Cavalry regiments as attached officers. Any one who has been a Cavalry officer knows what happens when a Yeomanry officer is attached to a Cavalry regiment. No one cares anything about him. He will never belong to the regiment, and as for any training which he is allowed to get whilst so attached, the whole thing is a perfect farse. He will certainly never lead a troop, as he might make a mistake and the squadron officer might get abused by the officer next senior in command. Therefore, the Yeomanry officer becomes thoroughly bored, and returns to his regiment as ignorant as when he left it.
  But in the Yeomanry school things were different. So keen was the work that in many cases the men used to work up to
  1614
  eight and ten o'clock at night in order to pass their examination. A definite object was thus achieved, and the efficiency both of Yeomanry officers and non-commissioned officers was very much advanced. I believe there is a mythical idea of training squadrons going about the country in the dim future to train men. As far as I can make out, these squadrons will have to train officers and non-commissioned officers at one and the same time. The training given to men who sit in the saddle is not the same as that given to a major or captain, who desires instruction in general tactical work. Yet apparently, if the training squadron scheme is carried out on the lines indicated by Lord Granard, this will be the only means of training our officers now that the Yeomanry school has been abolished. I believe the abolition of that school to be a downward step affecting the future efficiency of the Yeomanry officers.
  The next economy I wish to draw attention to is in connection with the permanent staff. Three days ago this was a very burning question, but I am glad to hear that an announcement was made to-day that the Government have again issued new regulations on the subject. I will not, therefore, trouble your Lordships with things of the past. But there are certain reductions which it is still necessary to draw attention to. The permanent staff is at all times a perfectly necessary body to the Territorial Army, but more so at the present moment, because recruiting and training are very largely in the hands of the permanent staff. If you make that staff dissatisfied, as they are at present, you will not get efficient work out of them. I understand that their pay in certain circumstances has been altered back to what it was before, but there are still distinct grievances. First of all there is the £18 they used to draw every year for accommodation allowance, and also the £6 10s., the limit allowed for duties outside their regular work. These have been cut down. In cases where accommodation is provided for them in drill halls, or otherwise, the £18 is not paid. Formerly, if their lodging in, say, a little annex to a barracks was rated at £7 a year, they were allowed to draw the balance. That is not so under the present arrangement. The question

  1615
  of travelling warrants is, I believe, under consideration, and I hope that that of the £6 10s. 0d. allowance for work outside regular duties will also be considered, because that is a matter of very great importance to non-commissioned officers doing clerical work.
  I turn from the permanent staff to the brigade staff. The £50 allowed to run the brigade office is a very great grievance to Regular officers. They have to pay for a clerk, for office expenses, telegrams, stationery, etc., and these offices cannot be maintained for less than £90 or £100 a year, so that the officers have to make up the balance. Economies in the case of other than Regular officers are to be deprecated; but it is extremely hard, in the case of a soldier who has left his regiment with the idea of drawing from £100 to £150 a year clear pay, that he should have to refund to the Government £40. Yet the Regular officer on half-pay has to make up the difference in order to enable the Government to effect this economy. I think this may justly be described as not very generous conduct.
  The next question to which I wish to refer is that of the grant in respect of horses. The Yeomanry were promised in your Lordships' House by Lord Portsmouth, when he occupied the position of Under-Secretary of State for War, that they should draw £5 allowance for every horse in the regiment. We still draw that allowance, but it is subject to certain reductions. In the first place, the horse establishment has been reduced by fifty-three horses per regiment. That does not make for efficiency, since, during the fifteen or sixteen days training, fifty-three men have to be left in camp every day, because there are no horses for them to ride. Yet we were told that the Territorial Army was to be complete in every part. If you do not give the men sufficient horses how are you going to teach them to ride? Under this arrangement you will always have a large number of loafers in camp who have nothing to do, and the result will be that these men will not get sixteen days training. I do not see how it can be said that this will add to the efficiency of the Yeomanry. This £5 allowance per horse is further subject to insurance
  1616
  money and to veterinary expenses incurred during camps and as a result of the training, and sometimes these amounts are very heavy. The man may find that he has lost most of his £5 in veterinary expenses getting his horse back to a sound state of health. I certainly think veterinary assistance is a matter which the State ought to pay for.
  Next, I would like to call attention to the unfortunate economies which have been made in the training kit—I mean in wagons, ammunition carts, water carts, saddlery, and other things of that sort, which ought to have been long ago issued to the various units. I hear from three commands that there is a great shortage in this training kit, especially in the direction of wagons and harness for ambulance, transport and supply, and ammunition columns. Under these circumstances it is difficult to get the full amount of training out of the men. It is quite possible that this may not be considered fair criticism seeing that this is the first year of the new force; but it is essential that the maximum amount of training should be got out of the men this year. A sufficient number of Artillery non-commissioned officers are not coming forward to join the Territorial Army, and I believe that to be due to the unfortunate reports which have got about as to the docking of their pay. That may or may not be so, but at all events the number of training sergeants is not up to the establishment, which I think everyone will admit was meagre enough at the best.
  Another unfortunate economy has been made in the direction of the doctors' fees, the sum of 2s. 6d. for passing a man as medically fit having been reduced to 1s. The result is that only a certain number of doctors will examine the men, and therefore you have to pay the fares of the men to go to be examined, which may cost more than the money you save. It is said that this economy would lead to regular medical officers doing more work than in the past, but I do not think there is much in that. There is only one depot in a county; many counties have no depot at all, and the travelling expenses of the men going to be examined amount

  1617
  in some places to more than is saved by the reduction. My noble friend Lord Harris proposes to call attention to the question of loss in pay and allowances, and therefore I will not touch upon that.
  There is, however, only one other matter to which I should like to refer—the question of mobilisation. We have not up to now seen any mobilisation kit; yet if the Territorial Force is to be efficient it must be able to mobilise at once, otherwise it will be as big a sham as the Volunteer Force was in the past. As far as one can see, no move has yet been made in this direction. I am fully aware that the War Office has had considerable difficulties to contend with and has been compelled to issue a great many new regulations from time to time to meet them. But I think we ought not to shut our eyes to the fact that until we have full opportunities for training the men and making the mobilisation arrangements not a sham but a reality, we shall not have taken any step forward in the line of progress.
  LORD HARRIS,who had given notice, "To call attention to the serious loss in pay and allowances suffered by Yeomanry officers of certain ranks under the Territorial Army Regulations, and to various changes in the Regulations as regards Yeomanry training and drill which are not likely to secure greater efficiency," said: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Under-Secretary would prefer that I should address my observations to the House now so that he may be able to reply to my noble friend and myself in one speech. Although my noble friend below me acknowledged that it might, perhaps, be rather captious to criticise the Regulations of the Territorial Army too closely in its first year, some of the points to which I propose to call attention are not affected by that admission.
  I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the differences in pay which have been suffered by the officers who have transferred from the Yeomanry to the Territorial Army. The Secretary of State for War gave an undertaking in another place that those who transferred from the old Yeomanry to the Territorial Force would be secure in their emoluments. I cannot specify the exact speech in which
  1618
  that statement was made, but I am sure a declaration to that effect was made in the other House by the Secretary of State. Therefore, we were under the impression that in transferring from the Yeomanry to the Territorial Army we would not be losers. The noble Lord may say, "You are free men, you had a month in which to consider the new terms, and, therefore, if you have got worse terms than you had in the Imperial Yeomanry it is your own lookout." That is perfectly true, but it is not the practice of Yeomanry officers to study the pay regulations. They were quite under the impression that they would be no sufferers by the transfer.
  I do not pretend to say that the difference in pay to which I shall presently draw the attention of your Lordships is going to cause officers to leave the Territorial Army or to deter others from taking up commissions; but, having regard to the fact that during the past seven years the Yeomanry had progressed more satisfactorily than any other branch of His Majesty's Army, it is an ungrateful return that those gentlemen responsible for that improvement should have a greater pecuniary burden thrown on their shoulders than when they were in their old service. I do not know whether my figures are absolutely correct The noble Lord the Under-Secretary will have an opportunity of criticising them, but I have taken every step, outside of going to the War Office, to secure their accuracy. I calculate that a major with more than two years' service will lose 19s. upon his fifteen days' training, and a major with less than two years' service will lose 7s. 6d. and also the squadron-drill pay which he has drawn annually since the noble Viscount on the Front Opposition Bench, Viscount Midleton, granted a day's pay for two day's squadron drill, making a total of £1 12s. 6d. A captain loses 1s. 10½d. a day, which with his squadron-drill pay, amounts to £2 10s.; a lieutenant loses £2 15s. 2d.; a second lieutenant, £2 14s.2d.; and a veterinary surgeon—the hardest worked man, probably, in the regiment during the fifteen days' training—loses something over £2 11s. These amounts may not appear to your Lordships very serious; but if you apply this to the case of a Regular officer you will find that it amounts, in the case of a

  1619
  subaltern, to docking him of something like £50 of his annual subaltern's pay.
  I have mentioned the abolition of the squadron-drill pay. I do not know that, outside the £5 per horse, there was a more useful advantage given by my noble friend below me than squadron-drill pay. It is difficult, in the case of men resident in towns, for them to get to a place where squadron drill can be carried out. The regulations laid down that a certain number had to be present, and it was important to get that number in order that the men might draw squadron-drill pay. The men had to hire in a great many cases, and they hired out of the squadron-drill pay. The abolition of this pay affects some regiments very seriously. I know of one regiment which assembles for two or three days' drill at Easter. It goes to a town where a cavalry regiment is quartered; it has the adantage of horses being lent to it, and it uses the squadron-drill pay for the carriage of the men to and fro and for their messing when they are there. The whole of the cost in the future, as far as I can see, will be thrown either on the men or on the officers. In the same way, one of the squadrons in my regiment assembles for two days previous to the training and puts in its squadron drills in that way. It is a squadron raised entirely in a large town and it has difficulty in doing squadron drill at any other time. By means of the squadron-drill pay it was enabled to put in those two days' drill at a small cost to the men. That has now been altered, and I am afraid that it will place difficulties in the way of the men attending the squadron drill.
  I always understood that the object of the great change that has been made—shall I be using too strong a word if I say the confusion that has been created?—and the labour that has been thrown upon large number of civilians, and, presumably, has been thereby taken off the War Office, was greater efficiency. As regards the Yeomanry, the effect will be that they will lose one day's training annually, and the men will have greater difficulty than before in getting to the mounted squadron drills. I endorse entirely what my noble and gallant friend below me has said as to the training of young officers. I remember the old
  1620
  school at Aldershot; Colonel Oakes was in command, and Captain Percy Barrow had charge of the school. It is impossible to conceive a more thorough training than an officer got at that school. You had to do everything on paper; you then had to do everything with rope drill in the yard; and then you went out in the field on horseback and did the same thing; and if a young officer was not thoroughly trained, not only to lead a troop, but to lead a squadron—and he might be even certified to be competent to command a regiment—it was absolutely his own fault. Now that is all changed.
  There were a great many Yeomanry officers who preferred the idea of a young officer being sent to a regiment. I never have preferred that, for this reason. The capacity of imparting your own knowledge to other people is not given to everyone, and it may so happen that in a regiment there is not one squadron leader who is capable of imparting what he knows himself, and yet he may be the smartest possible officer; whereas the officer at the school was engaged in the practice of teaching during the whole of the year, and he could not help being an efficient schoolmaster. I know this from my own experience. These young officers now come back not nearly as well trained as the young officers who were at the Yeomanry school. Although attached to a regiment they are not even given a troop to lead during the whole course of the month. How, therefore, can they be expected, when they return, to be competent to lead men who are not so well trained as regulars? I hope we shall see a training squadron in every divisional area, and that at the head will be an officer who is competent to teach. Otherwise there will be no advantage in the training squadron over the present system.
  There is another thing. Remember it is claimed that the new regulations are going to produce greater efficiency. Whereas under the old regulations a young officer was compelled to go to the school at Aldershot or to a regiment, as the case might be, within the first two years of his service, he now need not go until he is within sight of the command of a squadron, which may not be for six

  1621
  or seven years, and then he need only go for a fortnight. I should imagine that commanding officers would take care that their officers did go, but it is not provided by the regulations. So far as the War Office are concerned, they have lowered the chance of a young officer's being properly trained, and that is not likely to conduce to greater efficiency. I also endorse what my noble and gallant friend has said regarding the allowance that was given for veterinary expenses subsequent to training. I think that to cut off the veterinary expenses after they have been given during the last five or six years is very harsh. It is often no fault of the man that his horse is injured or goes sick. I had a number of cases of sickness last year. There happened to be a particularly cold snap the first night, and sixteen or seventeen horses were laid up with pneumonia. I had previously applied for blankets, but they were refused. I think it is very hard that men who put in this service should have to pay veterinary expenses out of their own pocket. In many speeches made in the country as to what was going to be done under the Territorial Army scheme, promises were, I submit, given that no man who served should suffer in pocket, and it seems to me that something like a breach of that engagement has taken place. The new men will receive, I estimate, about 1s. 6d. a day less than the old Yeomen, and I am honestly afraid that when that difference comes to be noticed during next year's training it will detract from the popularity of the Force. As long as the Force was properly treated there was no chance of its falling off in numbers or in efficiency. I hope that in the course of the next year the Secretary of State may be disposed to reconsider the matter, and, if possible, grant some concessions which will make up for what the officers and men have lost.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord LUCAS): My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lords who have spoken for having given me notice of the points which they intended to raise, and I will endeavour to deal with them as shortly as I can. First of all, there was the question of the form of instruction given to young officers. We
  1622
  quite agree, to a certain point, that the instruction which was imparted to the young officers at Netheravon was in most cases superior to that which they received when they were attached to a Regular regiment, and if the accommodation at Netheravon were unlimited and the training staff available it would propably have conduced to higher efficiency if we had been able to continue the arrangement. But that was not the case, and now the higher training given to the Regular Cavalry absorbs all our resources there. We propose, however, to form instructional classes—not necessarily on the lines of the training squadron spoken of at an earlier stage of this scheme—in each command in the country, which we hope young officers will be able to attend. As to the permanent staff, that has been dealt with in a circular which is shortly to be issued, and which will meet a good many of the points raised by Lord Lovat.
  With regard to housing, we have always regarded the £18 as strictly a lodging allowance, and not as a sum to be spent partly on lodging and partly as a bonus to the men. We feel, therefore, that, if quarters are available in which properly to house the instructor, the purpose of the lodging allowance is served, and that he is not entitled to whatever may be left of the £18 over the value of the housing afforded him. The sum of £6 10s. is what we consider to be the right amount to be given per company under normal conditions. Should exceptional conditions arise under which it is inevitable that the expenses should be greater, we shall treat those as special cases and shall be prepared to meet them and make a larger grant. But, after having gone very carefully into the question, we think that under ordinary conditions the grant of £6 10s. per company ought to be sufficient.
  Then there is the question of the brigade staff. The expenses with regard to the brigade staff have steadily mounted up. First of all the brigade-major received, I think, £100 and the brigadier £150, with £25 for office expenses. Then to that was added the £40 travelling allowance, and now, under the present scheme, we have

  1623
  doubled the grant for office expenses, and we pay £50 to the County Association for the headquarters of the brigade; this is given as an administrative grant. That, we think, ought to cover the expenses. With all due respect to what Lord Lovat has said, I think it is impossible at this early stage to say that the running of the headquarters of a brigade is going to cost £90 or £100. We cannot see that there is anything in this scheme which is going so largely to increase the work of the brigadier and the brigade-major that it will not be adequately covered by doubling, as we have done, the grant for office expenses. In all these things we are at the present moment more or less in the dark, and if, in time to come, it is found that this is inadequate, and that the expenses are out of all proportion to the grant, that would be a fair case to bring up, and we should be glad to consider it on its merits.
  With regard to the establishment of horses in the Yeomanry, what is taken into account is that you must have a certain number of men whose duties will confine them to camp, and who will not have a chance of going out with the regiment. Therefore there is no need to mount them. I think the Yeomanry are to have eight dismounted men per squadron. A Regular Cavalry regiment has, I think, twelve dismounted men per squadron, and the war establishment of the old Yeomanry was ten dismounted men per squadron. I know that in a Yeomanry regiment you are bound to have a certain number of casualties among the horses, and that it is very useful to have spare horses on which to mount the men. That raises the very big question of whether you are to take what amounts to a reserve of horses to camp, and that is a question which must be considered on its merits. It is impossible to turn out the whole of the strength you take to camp, even if you have horses for them, and I do not see that you require horses for men who cannot, in any circumstances, go out to camp. The new scheme only allows for that, and provides that horses shall not be required for those men who have to stay in camp.
  The issue of materiel generally has been a very big and difficult work. We have done our best to get it out in time, but
  1624
  if the noble Lord knows of cases where harness and wagons and equipment generally are available and have not been served out I hope he will bring them before us, because the thing we wish above all others is to equip the Territorial Army as rapidly as possible. Then reference was made to the present paucity of instructors, particularly in the Artillery. I have said before in this House, and I say it again, that the provision of instructors for the Territorial Field Artillery at the present moment is a matter of the utmost difficulty. It is the worst time in the whole year for finding these men. All our Regular Artillery officers are going out for training, practice camps, and the rest of it, and on the work they do will depend their reports for the year, which are of the greatest importance to the individuals concerned. It would be very hard on an officer commanding a battery if you asked him to hand over to the Territorial Force two or three of his best non-commissioned officers just when he was going out to practice camp. Therefore I would beg of the Territorial Force generally that they should exercise patience in this matter. We are going to supply these men as quickly as we possibly can, but it would be disastrous if you insisted on their being sent at such a time. It would mortify the Regular Artillery, and it would not tend to improve the relations between them and the Territorial Field Artillery. If the Territoral Artillery will exercise patience we shall be able to supply them with men in the long run, and it would not be of any advantage to press the matter now.
  As to the doctors' fees, a grant is made of 1s. for every recruit who is passed. A considerable percentage of the recruits have been examined either by the regimental doctor or by some public-spirited and patriotic local practitioner, who has done the work for nothing. We have every reason to believe, in view of the extremely generous and public-spirited way in which the whole medical profession has come forward to help this scheme, that we shall continue to receive their assistance. But the County Associations will draw their 1s. for every man whether he has been examined free or not, and we hope that this will enable them to meet those cases where a fee

  1625
  of 2s. 6d. has to be paid. I do not think that in all cases you will have to pay as much as 2s. 6d. It was stated at a meeting which Lord Lovat and I attended to-day that in one county—and it was a Scottish county—the doctors did the work for 1s.
  As to mobilisation, we are working out the general mobilisation requirements and we are trying to meet them with the equipment that we have. The work is not as yet in an advanced stage. The officials at the War Office have worked in a splendid way, but our time has been taken up in meeting immediate requirements. But I can assure the noble Lord that the mobilisation requirements are by no means forgotten, and that it is our intention to work them out in full and to have the equipment ready as soon as possible. As to pay, to which Lord Harris referred, if my memory serves me the pledges that were given as regards the Yeomanry being allowed to continue at their own rates of pay until the end of their term applied to the men but not to the officers. The officers did not join for a definite term as the men did. I have the figures here as to the actual pay of the officers, but they are in a slightly different form from that given by Lord Harris, and I could not check his figures. Under the previous scheme the officer had to pay for the forage of his horse, but now the forage is found for him.
  LORD HARRIS: I made that allowance.
  LORD LUCAS: In that case I think our figures differ. Under the old scheme a lieutenant-colonel commanding drew, in pay and allowances, 31s. 6d.; at the present time he draws 34s. 6d. That is a clear gain of 3s. Besides that, you have to take into account the foraging of his horse, which we put down at 1s. 4d.
  LORD HARRIS: I did not mention the colonel at all.
  LORD LUCAS: The noble Lord exercised a wise discretion in leaving him out.
  LORD HARRIS: I dealt with those officers who have suffered loss.
  LORD LUCAS: A major under the old scheme received 25s.; he will now receive 24s. 6d., the forage for the horse being equivalent to 1s. 4d. The major second in command, received 26s. under the old scheme; he now receives 25s. 6d.; the ordinary major now receives 24s., as against 25s. under the old scheme. The captain will receive 21s. 1½d., as against 23s.; the lieutenant 15s. 2d., as against 17s. 8d.; and the second lieutenant 14s. 2d., as against 16s. 8d. But, of course, there must be added to what they now receive the forage for the horse, which is equivalent to 1s. 4d. We admit that there is here a certain amount of modification in the pay of the lower ranks of officers, but, on the whole, in the future they will come out the gainers, for the reason that in future all new officers will draw £20 outfit allowance and be provided with saddlery.
  LORD HARRIS: How about the veterinary officer?
  LORD LUCAS: I am sorry I have not got the figures with regard to the veterinary officer.
  A NOBLE LORD: A wise discretion on the part of the Under-Secretary.
  LORD LUCAS: Then I come to the question of squadron-drill pay. I am sure all noble Lords will agree with what has been said as to the admirable and efficient body represented by the Yeomanry Force, and as to their value in our military scheme. But it should not be forgotten that the Yeomanry have enjoyed exceptional advantages in respect of pay for squadron drill. When the Yeomanry and the Volunteers are now members of one and the same Force, it is obviously difficult to continue these exceptional advantages in the matter of pay, which are not given to their comrades in the other branch of the Force. Pay for drill has never been given to the Volunteers; it has been confined to the training camp period; and I have heard no overwhelming argument to show that the Yeomanry should be placed in a different position from the Volunteers.
  LORD HARRIS: The Volunteers have not had to find horses.
  LORD LUCAS: The men who bring their own horses to camp and draw the £5 can bring their own horses to the drill. Those who hire horses can arrange that the £5 they pay will cover the hire for drill; and if there are any men not included in this you have £150 per squadron for horse-hire which ought to be sufficient.
  LORD HARRIS: We had that before.
  LORD LUCAS: The General Office Commanding can, if he thinks it will conduce to the increased efficiency of the Yeomanry, pay for extra days training Finally, as regards the training of young officers, we do not lay down any longer the rule that they must carry out their instructional course during the first two years after joining the regiment. On the other hand, we do not propose to give way in respect of the efficiency to be exacted An actually higher standard is set than has been the case when it comes to be a question of promotion. At the same time, a greater amount of elasticity is allowed through not confining the instruction to the first two years after joining the regiment. Some of the keenest and best officers have found it impossible in the first two years to go through their instructional course. I think I have now answered all the points raised.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Can the noble Lord tell us what the net saving is on the whole cost of the Yeomanry by these changes of pay and allowances?
  LORD LUCAS: I cannot carry those figures in my head; but I can say that the whole of the Territorial Force is estimated to cost £500,000 more than the Yeomanry and Volunteers cost before.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think that generalisation is rather an unfortunate one, because it does not tend to reassure us. Your Lordships are quite aware that up to the time of the reorganisation of the Yeomanry there was great difficulty in filling the ranks of both men and officers. That was overcome, and for some years; there has been no difficulty in filling the ranks, and the certificates of efficiency given by the inspecting officer were, as I
  1628
  know, having seen most of them, absolutely convincing as to the advantage of the change. But now the noble Lord has given us, in reply to my noble friends, a long list of the adjustments and modifications in the pay and allowances of officers, and he has been warned by both noble Lords that the effect of these changes has not been at all advantageous to either the officers or the men of the Force. I do not wish to enter, on this occasion certainly, into the whole question of the advisability of what has been done with regard to the Territorial Army; but I urge the noble Lord not to allow the establishment of some fancied equality between the Yeomanry and the Territorial Infantry and Volunteers to lead him to make just those changes which will impair efficiency and prevent our obtaining the same class of men and the same number of officers as before. We have almost everything connected with the Army in the melting-pot at the present moment. The one Force in connection with which nothing could be said was the Yeomanry, which was full of men and had its full complement of officers. I take exception, if I may venture to do so, to the noble Lord's tone, establishing a reason for this and that; the main thing is that the noble Lord cannot show that there is substantial economy. There might be something to be said for the reduction if the money must be applied in other quarters. If these modifications should tend to a considerable change in the present highly useful condition of the Yeomanry Force, then I think nobody will regret it more than those who are responsible on the front bench. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord not to allow this discussion to terminate in his mind with what has been said to-day, and not to allow a fancied consistency to stand in the way of leaving matters where they were if a change is not clearly for the public advantage.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I had a Motion down to move for Papers, but as this is only a preliminary list of the economies which have been effected, I do not propose to move for Papers at the present time. But I would like to call attention to two important admissions which have been made by Lord Lucas—first, that the training this year

  1629
  has been very short of permanent staff; and, secondly, that there has been a shortage of materiel. The training, therefore, cannot have been so good as it might have been in a normal year. I hope His Majesty's Government will bear this in mind, and that arrangements will be made for winter classes this year.
  LORD HARRIS: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask a Question arising out of the Answer he has just given. He stated that, whatever statements were made with regard to their being no loss of pay on transfer to the Territorial Army, those statements were never meant to apply to officers. Therefore, the noble Lord admits that a promise was made to the men. How, then, does he excuse the withdrawal of the squadron-drill pay?
  LORD LUCAS: We have never considered the squadron drill as part of the training. What we said was that the men who did transfer should continue their present rate of pay during the training period and until the end of their term of service, and that has been carried out.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.