Lords Sitting of 1 June 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Garw and Ogmore Gas; London County Council (General Powers); Wolverhampton Corporation; Doncaster Corporation; Manchester Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Standing Orders Committee.—Report from, That the Standing Orders not compiled with in respect of the petition for the River Wandle Protection Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill. Read and agreed to.
River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.].—Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
Keighley Corporation Bill [H.L.].—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.].—Reported, with Amendments.
Lincoln Corporation Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Leeds Corporation Bill.—Reported with Amendments.
Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.].—Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over this day, and not to sit to-morrow till Three o'clock.
Llanelly and Burry Port Water Board Bill [H.L.].—Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill.—Brought from the Commons.
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ravensthorpe Urban District Council Bill [H.L.].—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
St. Marylebone Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Paisley District Tramways—Was presented by the Lord Denman (for the Lord Herschell) (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 86.)
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order).
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (No. 88); Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill (No. 89); Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill (No. 90).—Read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills.—Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, also the time for depositing Documents relating to any Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CORNWALL, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX, who had given notice to move, in the event of the Bill being read 2a, that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council Order, said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name I desire to detain your Lordships for as short a time as possible. The facts are not disputed, and they are, very shortly, these. The school at East Hardwick has been a Church school for over 250 years. Improvements were required in it by the local education authority, and the Board of Education. It is not denied that the managers submitted plans for these improvements which were considered adequate by the inspector of the Board of Education, and by the inspector of the local education authority. The question of a playground having been raised, the managers, although they had been told by the Board of Education that in the opinion of the Board they could not be required to provide such a playground—and, indeed, if your Lordships were acquainted with the hamlet of East Hardwick you would see how completely unnecessary the playground is—did provide a playground; and not only so, they provided the playground which had been recommended by the inspector of the local education authority.
The plans for these suggested improvements were detained for considerably over a year by the local education authority, and then, though throughout the whole course of the negotiations it had never been once suggested that the premises were such as could not be made sufficient, the local education authority gave notice of their intention to build a new council school. Upon this there was a public meeting of all the ratepayers and inhabitants of East Hardwick to protest against the decision of the local
1476
education authority. That meeting was unanimous in its condemnation of the proposal; but, nevertheless, the local education authority persisted in its determination to compel the erection of a new council school, to accommodate sixty children at a cost of £14 a head, making a total of, roughly, £1,000, though thirty is the outside number of children attending the present school, and the erection of such a council school contrary to the wish of every inhabitant of the parish would add 1s. to the existing 8d. education rate. The managers appealed to Mr. McKenna, who refused to upset the decision of the local authority; and I wish to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the fact that he did not grant a local inquiry, in accordance with his powers, nor consider, as he was bound to do under Section 9 of the Education Act of 1902—first, the interests of secular education, which were amply provided for assuming the school to be altered as the managers were prepared to alter it; secondly, the wishes of the parents, about which there is no dispute; and, thirdly, the economy of the rates, which, as I have explained, are proposed to be raised 1s. in the £ in respect of a school which nobody wants.
Upon the decision of the Board of Education being made known, the managers were enabled, by the generosity of a lady residing in the neighbourhood, to offer to build a new school themselves free of cost to the ratepayers. This offer was refused, and the local education authority were supported in their refusal by the Board of Education, who informed the managers that Mr. McKenna had already decided that it was to be a council school. And, lastly, the feeling against the proposed school in the neighbourhood is so strong that no one in the parish will sell land for its site, and the Board of Education are now proposing to take compulsory power of acquisition. I submit that these facts speak for themselves. No one disputes their accuracy, and, emphasised as they are by the further fact that there is a council school already existing within a mile and a quarter of East Hardwick, I am compelled to say that the only reasonable interpretation that can be put upon them is the determination of the Board of Education and the local education authority between

1477
them to squeeze out a Church school at all costs.
As I have said, I am not going to comment on these facts, because I think they require no comment and are stronger left to themselves. But there are two or three questions with regard to them that are very pertinent to the matter and which ought to be asked. I should like to know, if the premises were such as made it impossible to render them satisfactory, which is the excuse now alleged in support of the new council school, why additions and improvements to the school were suggested by the local education authority themselves? Why was it never once suggested that the premises were irremediably unsuitable, and why was all this waste of time and money incurred if they were incapable of improvement? Why did no member of the local education authority go to East Hardwick to inspect the school and see whether it was quite impossible to avoid this great addition to the rates? And then, why did not the authority accept the offer of the managers to erect a school free of expense to the parish? Why was there no local inquiry? Who made the discovery that the present premises could not be rendered satisfactory, and why was it not made before the managers were asked to submit plans for the improvements necessary to make the school efficient?
I am quite aware that it will be said that this Motion is one of an unusual character, and it may be thought a strong thing to refuse leave to a local education authority to purchase land which they say is required. But I submit that the facts of this case are very unusual in themselves, that the action of the Board of Education is no less unusual, and that it is a very strong measure to strain the law in order to take compulsory powers to acquire land for a purpose which is not necessary under the Act. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord the President of the Council, whose illness we all so sincerely deplore, admitted that no inquiry had been made as it ought to have been made, and that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies admitted that this was a very nicely balanced case and that he could not say what his own decision
1478
would have been in regard to it. My noble friend added—
"I should have been in considerable doubt on the subject."
I think it is not too much to say that if the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies had been at the head of the Board of Education, as I devoutly wish he were, the decision would not have been what it was. My noble friend Lord Crewe knows the locality extremely well—in old days he and I have both frequently hunted over it—and I would ask him whether, when a mistake has been made, as I feel sure he thinks is the case here, it is not really better frankly to admit the mistake and remedy it? In this instance I very seriously ask him whether His Majesty's Government will not consent to my Motion that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the West Riding County Council Order, and allow the East Hardwick managers to carry out their proposals for improving the school to the satisfaction of everyone in the parish and to the great saving of the rates.
I should like, if I may, to give two reasons which I think will incline the noble Earl to agree to my request. I find that in 1871 my noble friend's father, the late Lord Houghton, was active in raising funds to erect a church in place of the old chapel in connection with this trust; and in 1872 the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal laid the foundation of this new church with the aid of the Freemasons of the West Riding of Yorkshire Province. I submit that if the late Lord Houghton and my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal were able in 1871 and 1872 to be so friendly to the arrangements connected with this trust, it is not a great thing to ask that they should continue their good offices at the present time. I also find that on 16th May there was published in a local Yorkshire paper called the Stalwart—I had not heard of it before, but I rather infer from its name that it is a Liberal paper—a letter from Mr. Runciman, in which he seems to suggest that if a Provisional Order authorising compulsory powers for the acquisition of a site had not been granted and a confirming Bill had not been before Parliament, he might have reopened the

1479
question. I do not know if I am right in putting this interpretation on Mr. Runciman's letter, but he certainly mentions the Provisional Order as a reason why he regrets his inability to reopen the question. If His Majesty's Government will agree to my Motion that difficulty will be removed out of Mr. Runciman's path, and he will be able to remedy what has been done and allow the managers of the East Hardwick school to carry out the necessary improvements.
We hear at the present time some talk about a possible compromise on the education question. I do not know whether such a compromise is possible without the sacrifice of essential principles. Certainly it is no business of mine to discuss that question to-day. But I do very seriously say that if any compromise is ever to be arrived at, it certainly will not be promoted by showing such a spirit towards denominational schools as has been shown towards the East Hardwick school. I am told that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, whose interest in educational affairs is so great, is likely to say that this East Hardwick school was founded by a Nonconformist in 1653 and was stolen by the Church at the Restoration. Well, I should have thought that possession of a school for all these years was a sufficiently good title. But if the noble Lord should use that argument—and I will say something on that point in a moment—all I can say is that if the wishes of a founder are to be pleaded as a justification for depriving the Church of a school held for over 200 years and putting it into the possession of those who would allow only undenominational teaching to be given in it, then I look forward to obtaining the whole-hearted and complete support of my noble friend against any educational proposal to break the trusts of schools founded within our own memory all over the country, and founded for the giving of denominational instruction. If the argument is good in one case, it is equally good in the other.
But I hasten to relieve my noble friend's mind by telling him that there is really no sort of doubt as to the intentions of the founder of this school. The school was founded in 1653, a critical
1480
time in the history of religion in England. It was in that year that the tide of Puritanism reached its flood and the prohibition of every kind of Church teaching took a form so excessive that it created a reaction; and no Churchman at heart dared at that time endow a school in connection with the Church of England. In the absence of absolute knowledge it is impossible to say what the private opinion of the founder was, but there is the strongest reason to believe that he was a Churchman. What makes it nearly certain that this was the case is that in his will he provides for a convenient chapel and free school in East Hardwick, and calls the minister of the chapel a "preaching schoolmaster." I have looked carefully into the matter, and there is not a single case of a free school being founded by a Nonconformist in the seventeenth century. If so, it is quite clear what the opinions of the founder were; and I can only say that the present action of the Board of Education in trying to take away this school from those who have enjoyed it for 250 years is extremely like the action of the earlier Nonconformists, who very much preferred using schools provided by other people to providing them for themselves. I ask His Majesty's Government whether they cannot agree to my Motion and disallow so much of the Bill as takes compulsory powers for the erection of this new school, and so avoid inflicting a very great hardship on a small parish, composed of working people who are strongly opposed to the action of the local education authority.
Moved, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council Order."—(Viscount Halifax.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, we must all heartily recognise the exceedingly moderate and genial manner in which my noble friend opposite has introduced this question to your Lordships' notice for a second time. These cases are undoubtedly among the most difficult which fall within the purview of the Board of Education. You have, on the

1481
one hand, a powerful, energetic, and modern-minded local authority, very largely concerned with urban schools of the most approved type; and, on the other hand, a little old parish school which, as I think appeared from all the facts which came out when we had this question before us the other day, was not in its general arrangements in full accord with modern notions of what an elementary school should be.
After a great deal of correspondence and investigation, the matter came before the Board of Education, and what the Board had to decide was not whether the managers ought to be given a chance of repairing the school or of making various changes in it, but whether, if that was done, the school would be permanently, or for a considerable time ahead, of a thoroughly satisfactory character; because it clearly would not be fair to the managers themselves to allow them to spend money on making improvements it there was a risk that in a few years time the school might again be brought up before the Board of Education and possibly condemned. The local education authority had come to the conclusion that the premises could not be made satisfactory, and the Board of Education supported them in that view. They, therefore, under Section 9 of the Act of 1902, declared that a new school was necessary, and in doing so the Board was undoubtedly impressed by the first of the three considerations which have to be taken into account—namely, the interests of secular education; that is to say, broadly speaking, the provision of a thoroughly satisfactory elementary school. In the opinion of my right hon. friend that was the paramount and governing consideration.
The noble Viscount almost seemed to imply—and this, I think, was the only inaccuracy with which I am bound to tax him—that, all through, the managers, or somebody on their behalf, was willing to erect a new voluntary school in place of the old building. That is not so. As a matter of fact, the Board's decision was given on the 18th May, 1907, and certainly up to that time not a whisper had ever reached the Board of Education as to the possibility of a new school being provided. What did happen was that
1482
in the following August the vicar of the parish came to the Board of Education and suggested that the managers would build a new school; but nothing more followed. The decision of the Board had been given, and the matter proceeded no further. I do not know that the denominational question as regards the wishes of the parents is very strong in this case, either one way or the other. In any case, the Board of Education have no reason to suppose that it is; but undoubtedly the third consideration, that of the economy of the rates, is a very strong argument, and it is one which the parish have an undoubted title to press. A penny rate in this parish produces only a very small sum, and there is no doubt that the provision of a new council school would represent a very heavy burden on that small community. I do not think it is fair to tax the Board of Education with having had anything whatever in view but the interests of education, and it certainly is not the case that they failed to take great trouble in investigating the matter. Their inspectors made personal inquiry, with the result which we know.
Now I quite admit that it does seem somewhat absurd, if you like, and rather in the nature of cracking a nut with a steam hammer, to apply compulsory powers in a matter of this kind; but the House must remember that when once the Board of Education had decided that a new school was necessary, they either had to ask for these compulsory powers or to do nothing and practically leave the whole matter at the complete option of the managers. I am quite sure that the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, will agree that, speaking generally, it is a very unusual and a very undesirable thing for the Board of Education to reverse a decision which has been arrived at under Section 9 There, I am sure, I shall have the genera concurrence of the noble Marquess. As the matter stands, the Board of Education, supposing the noble Viscount's Motion were carried, would find themselves in the position of having to choose between the continuance of a school which they regard as unsatisfactory, or closing it, and, land being unobtainable,

1483
leaving the children of the parish without any school at all. That is the position.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: They could have the new school.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am coming to that.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The improvements which have been already said to be adequate could easily be carried out in the course of the holidays.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The improvements have not been said to be adequate. The Board of Education have said that no improvements which the managers could effect would make the school a permanently satisfactory school. Consequently, therefore, the Board are placed in that dilemma. The question is, is there any way out of that difficulty? A possible way out of the difficulty appears to me to be this. If it is true that the managers, or somebody on their behalf, is willing to provide a new school, that would be a new fact, which I think, would justify the Board of Education in reconsidering the decision they came to under Section 9. I have very little doubt that my right hon. friend would be prepared to consider the matter in that light; but it would only be on an understanding of that kind that I think my right hon. friend would be disposed to review the decision arrived at by the Board. That offer was not made—I wish that to be quite clear—before the decision of the Board was reached, and, therefore, it would be an entirely new fact which my right hon. friend would, I think, be disposed to take into consideration. Whether the noble Viscount is able, I will not say, to enter into any engagement, but to hold out any hopes of that being done, of course I am not in a position to say; but, if it were so, I should not be inclined to oppose the Motion which my noble friend has proposed.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The noble Earl will quite understand that it is impossible for me now to state if the offer to build a new school still holds good. But I am obliged to say that all the
1484
reasons the noble Earl has alleged for the action of the Board of Education are entirely disposed of by the fact that when the offer was made to them to build a new school they refused it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, what has just been said by the noble Viscount is, I suppose, all that we could have reasonably expected, him to say. He is not, of course, in a position to make a legally binding offer, but I was under the impression, after what passed at the last discussion, that the offer was still open.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I have no information on that subject. All I know is that a definite offer was made to the local education authority and refused.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Seeing that the offer has not been withdrawn, the proper course would be to postpone the decision until the point could be cleared up. If the offer made has been withdrawn, then the matter stands in a very different position from that occupied a few weeks ago. I hope the matter will be postponed until the wish of the generous donor can be known.
LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, may I be allowed to make a suggestion to the noble Viscount which will, I trust, bring agreement? I would point out that, if the noble Viscount insists upon his Amendment striking out a part of this omnibus Bill, he will defeat his own object, which is to obtain a solution satisfactory to the parish and also one that would have general approval. If he takes advantage of his position and the serried battalions which, I think, on this occasion he commands and strikes out this particular proposal, I think he will he taking a very strong and drastic course when a milder one would equally serve his purpose. If, on the other hand, the Bill is allowed to go upstairs—and I presume the procedure in regard to a Provisional Order Bill in your Lordships' House is very similar to what it is in the House of Commons, with whose procedure, I confess, I have hitherto been more familiar—it can be altered after consideration in a judicious and judicial spirit free

1485
from misunderstandings which have embittered the controversy in the House. I was not present when the matter was discussed the other evening, but I have read the debate, and I find that the noble Viscount said there had been a definite rejection of the offer to build a new school. As far as I can make out from the papers at the Board of Education, which I have had the advantage of reading, the vicar of the parish made an observation, apparently not of a representative kind, with regard to a new school. He said something of this kind—
"Well, if you finally reject the offer of these improvements we shall have to build a new school."
That is not what anybody would call a "firm" offer; and I cannot make out that until the debate the other evening there had been anything that amounted to what may be called an offer on the part of this parish to build a new school, and still less a rejection of the offer on the part of the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to note the more conciliatory attitude taken by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies than that in which the matter was treated on the part of the Government when attention was last called to it. I believe, with the noble Viscount, that had Lord Crewe been President of the Board of Education he would have recognised the justice of this case. The noble Earl is now divided between his sympathy with the views put forward by the noble Viscount and his loyal desire to support his colleague; and I cannot blame him for that. But the point is that when the offer was made it was peremptorily rejected.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Not by the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Why was that offer made? It was made because the Board of Education declined to accept the report of their own architect in approval of the plans and proposals submitted by the managers of this school. Why has that report been ignored as well as the report of the architect of the local education authority? I do not wish to say anything of a controversial
1486
character when we have been met in such a conciliatory spirit, but with the regard and affection which noble Lords in this House have for denominational education, this is a matter that cannot pass unnoticed or without remonstrance. There has, undoubtedly, been a considerable amount of correspondence between the Board of Education, the local education authority, and the managers of the East Hardwick School; and I think that before we arrive at any decision your Lordships should have the right to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the whole of the correspondence. I think we are entitled to ask that the correspondence should be laid on the Table. The local education authority is known to be hostile to denominational schools, and, without wishing to say anything disrespectful, it cannot be denied that the President of the Board of Education has shown no love for them. It does not seem unreasonable, in the circumstances, that the House should postpone a decision until your Lordships have had an opportunity of reading such correspondence on this subject as can be published. Reference has been made to the points on which I put a Question the other day to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I asked whether the Board of Education were acting legally in ignoring the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1902. Certainly they are ignoring the spirit of that Act when they propose to saddle a parish with an additional 1s. rate to build a school which is not required and which is strongly objected to. As it does not appear possible for the noble Viscount to give a definite answer to-day as to this offer, I think the question might be postponed, and that in the meantime we might have the Papers laid on the Table. This is an unusual course to take on a Bill of this kind, but the circumstances are unusual.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I would give a word of advice to the noble Viscount opposite never to make a speech for anyone else in anticipation, because I have no intention whatever of saying anything in regard to the history of the seventeenth century into which he entered. After the speeches we have heard, surely the House is very near to a settlement of this question, and I rise

1487
to support strongly the suggestion of the most rev. Primate that this matter should stand over. We are on the eve of the Whitsuntide holidays, and I do not suppose anything very serious will happen if the sending of this Bill to a Select Committee is postponed until the House reassembles. That will give a fortnight in which the necessary investigations can be made. With regard to the point raised by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, if the matter is going to be settled by a compromise the presentation of Papers is not urgent, though they might be moved for later as an independent historical document. As I rise to plead for a postponement in order that the matter may be settled in a harmonious way, I think that is a good reason why I should not touch upon any of the matters of fact, or alleged fact, which have been brought forward in this debate. Therefore, I do not wish to go into any of the disputed facts. But I would urge that as we are so near a settlement the matter should stand over.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I only rise to say that the course which my noble friend opposite has just proposed seems to us to be an eminently reasonable one. I do not think that after the conversation which has taken place it would be fair to expect that we should send the Bill as it now stands to a Committee upstairs. Noble Lords opposite will remember that we took exception to the manner in which this case had been treated by the Board of Education, not only for the reason that the munificent offer made by this lady had not been accepted, but for a good many other reasons. In our view the conduct of the Board of Education throughout this transaction has been what I can only describe as of a very aggressive character. I have no desire, however, to press that at present, because we now have it from the noble Earl opposite that if the offer made by this lady was a firm offer and if my noble friend is in a position by-and-bye to say that the offer still stands, the Board of Education will be prepared to entertain it. My noble friend very naturally is not able this evening to say whether the offer still holds good. In these circumstances we think it
1488
would be a reasonable course to adjourn the discussion until after the holidays, when, no doubt, my noble friend will be able to tell the House whether the solution proposed is still open to us.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate. Nothing will be lost by it, and when we resume in a fortnight's time we shall be in a better position to discuss the matter.
Moved, "That the debate be adjourned."—(Lord Heneage).
On Question,
Debate adjourned accordingly.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 557. East Africa Protectorate (Report for 1906–1907).
  No. 558. Uganda (Report for 1906– 1907).

  Correspondence relating to the tenure of land in the East Africa Protectorate.
  Fifty-first Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1907–1908.
  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1907. Part I. General Report.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, the Copyhold Act, 1894, the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900, the Drainage and Improvement of Land Acts, the Universities and College Estates Acts, 1858 to 1898, the Glebe Lands Act, 1888, and certain other Acts, for the year 1907.
  BELFAST HEALTH COMMISSION.
  Report to the Local Government Board for Ireland.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report and tables relating to Irish Agricultural Labourers, for the year 1907–1908.

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
  Report on the trade in imports and exports at Irish ports for the year ended 31st December, 1906.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF WESTMORLAND).
  Order made by the council of the county of Westmorland altering certain polling districts in the two Parliamentary Divisions of the county.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Twenty-fifth Report of the Comptroller-General of patents, designs, and trade marks, with appendix for the year 1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE NAVAL CONFERENCE.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend who represents the Foreign Office a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can inform the House when the further Report relating to the Peace Conference at the Hague will be laid on the Table, and whether the invitations to the proposed Naval Conference on International Maritime Law have been issued.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD FITZMAURICE): My Lords, in regard to the first part of my noble friend's Question I am glad to be able to inform the House that the further Papers which, in reply to my noble friend Lord Eversley, I stated that I hoped before long it would be possible to lay, are now practically ready and will be in the hands of Parliament almost immediately. In regard to the further Question which my noble friend has asked, as to whether the invitations to the proposed Naval Conference have been issued, the reply
  1490
  is in the affirmative. The desire of His Majesty's Government is to discuss certain points on which it is essential for us that we should have an agreement with the chief naval Powers before ratifying the Convention relating to Prize Courts, which was one of the results of the Hague Conference. The most important of those points, as your Lordships are aware, are the rules relating to blockade and contraband. The capture of private property at sea is not included. I cannot say what subjects other Powers may desire to raise, but it is desirable that the discussion should be concentrated on points like blockade and contraband, which are strictly germane to the proposed Prize Court Convention.

  THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHrose to call attention to the position of County Associations in connection with the raising of the scientific arms of the Territorial Force. The noble Earl said: My Lords, my reason for placing this notice on the Paper is that during the course of the debate which took place the other night on the initiative of my noble friend Lord Denbigh, those representing the County Associations had no opportunity of expressing an opinion. That debate took the form of an artillery duel between artillery experts on the one side and the Government on the other. Those who listened to that debate, especially noble Lords interested in raising the troops of the Territorial Force, must have heard the speeches of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Earl Roberts, and of the noble Earl Lord Denbigh, with feelings of apprehension, and certainly the answer that was given by the noble Lord who represents the War Office in this House was not very reassuring. But one thing we did learn—namely, that the original scheme as proposed by the Secretary of State for War would be adhered to under any circumstances, and that there was no alternative possible. There have been many debates on this question of the Territorial Force, and one is rather tempted to ask of what use those debates are if it is impossible to make any alteration.
  In addition to the condemnation in debate, there was a letter in the Press the other day from Colonel Lonsdale Hale, who joined in the cry against the Territorial Artillery, and said he would undertake to fill any hall in the United Kingdom with military experts opposed to the proposal of His Majesty's Government. Well, I think he might have gone further and undertaken to have filled any hall in the country with military experts opposed to any scheme of military reform that ever has been or could be devised. My noble friend Lord Newton went a good deal further the other day than Lord Roberts, and condemned the whole scheme of the Territorial Army root and branch.
  LORD NEWTON: Hear, hear.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: The noble Lord expressed an opinion upon the old Volunteers, and I am not sure that his opinion regarding the Volunteers has always been the same. We all know what he wants, and if this scheme fails he will very likely get what he wants. The noble Lord made a comparison between the old Volunteers and the Territorial Force as it at present exists, but I do not think such a comparison was fair, seeing that the time has not yet definitely arrived when the ranks of the Territorial Force have to be filled. There are, as we know, a great many differences under the new system which may or may not prevent a number of old Volunteers from rejoining, but I do not think the progress we have made in the raising of the necessary troops is at all one to cause discouragement.
  In the views he expressed the other night, Lord Roberts represented the Regular Artillery. We had at the same time the opinion of Lord Denbigh, who has not only had a good deal of experience as a Regular artilleryman, but is in command of the Honourable Artillery Company, which is often quoted as proof of what Territorial Artillery might be. Against that evidence we had quoted to us the remarks of the Military Correspondent of The Times as a complete answer to the criticisms of Lord Roberts. I venture to say that that was no answer at all. It was merely the expression of another opinion. Lord
  1492
  Roberts has given one opinion, and the Military Correspondent of The Times has given another; and I think nine people out of ten will look upon the opinion of Lord Roberts as far more valuable than that of the Military Correspondent of The Times on matters connected with the Artillery. But, after all, it is expert opinion; and we know very well from our experience of Committees upstairs that when there is a scientific or technical question involved each side brings forward a certain number of expert witnesses. If one side brings forward three the other invariably calls four, and the result usually is that it is one of the expert witnesses who gives the case away.
  I regret that Lord Denbigh's proposal to stiffen the Territorial Artillery with a Regular battery in each brigade was not considered. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War said it was perfectly simple, if you could raise two efficient batteries, to raise three. That is not the case. The great difficulty in the way of the Territorial Artillery is the lack of a Regular battery to show them what is wanted, and if you could stiffen these brigades of Territorial Artillery by having in each a Regular battery it would be of enormous advantage to the whole corps. The Regular battery would set a high standard, and there would be great competition among the amateur batteries to get as near as possible to that standard. On the question of the disappearance of certain batteries of Regular Artillery, I confess that I am in rather a difficulty. There has been a heated, and perhaps not very edifying, correspondence in The Times between Mr. Arnold-Forster and The Times Military Correspondent. The charge, I think, was in the first place made by Mr. Arnold-Forster that under the present scheme thirty-three batteries were to be done away with. The retort was that the only man who had abolished a battery of Regular Artillery was Mr. Arnold-Forster, and he replied that that brigade was not lost but had gone before and was really merged into others, and while each side accuses the other of reducing batteries of Artillery, each side claims that under their own system the Artillery has been stronger, both as

  1493
  regards men and efficiency than ever before.
  The noble Lord the Under-Secretary stated that under the present system the Regular Artillery would be short by 7,000 men on mobilisation, and that this shortage would be after stripping the thirty-three surplus batteries and returning the guns to store. What I suggest is that an easy method of averting shortage of men on mobilisation is to stiffen and strengthen the Territorial Artillery by a sort of nucleus battery. Lord Roberts, in the course of his remarks the other evening, expressed reluctance to place any difficulties in the way of the Secretary of State. I do not think he need have any fear of that, because as regards the raising of these troops the whole of the difficulties have been placed on the shoulders of the County Associations, due to absolute un-preparedness of administration after two years of incubation, hurry in the formation of the County Associations, and the contradictory orders we are always getting. I really begin to doubt whether the whole of the staff at the War Office are favourable to this scheme. They do not appear to me to do very much to help us out of our difficulties, and I would suggest that it should be clearly understood that with regard to military matters we should be under the general officer commanding in each division and that we of the County Association should be responsible for the civilian side, and we might drop the War Office out of the matter altogether.
  I also have to complain of the meagre assistance afforded by the War Office for the instruction of the artillery and engineering branches of the Territorial Force. Surely those who have taken so much trouble to make each county scheme a success should at least get that amount of assistance in the way of instructors necessary to teach the men. In addition to the sergeant-instructors, there is a certain amount of materiel which is absolutely necessary and which ought to be supplied to the various scientific arms at the moment of recognition. We have six batteries to raise. They are all recognised and two are complete, but we have only two guns. I maintain that we should have for each battery that is recognised two
  1494
  guns with four sets of appointments. With regard to the engineering branch, we have three field companies either recognised or ready to be recognised, and they are absolutely without any of the necessary equipment. The same applies to the brigade company of the Army Service corps and the mounted brigade of field ambulance. I think that recognition ought not to be looked upon as an empty compliment, but that we should be given what is really necessary to enable the instructors to teach the men in the scientific branches of the Territorial Force.
  There is another point which has exercised my mind. It is not for the County Associations to express any opinion as to what is necessary in regard to the Regular Army. That, of course, is a matter entirely for the military authorities. But there is an idea abroad that the Government intend gradually to reduce the Regular Army and to fill its place with the Territorial Force. The County Associations have put their hands to the difficult task of raising the Territorial Force on the distinct understanding that it was to be a second line army, and quite supplementary to the Regular Army. If there is any question of that force ever taking the place of the Regular Army we ought to be told so at once. We are perfectly willing to supplement the Regular Army but not to supplant it. I would urge my noble friend to do what he can to help us in our present difficulties, and I can assure him that the County Associations to-day, what with the activity of the critics on the one hand and the inaction of the War Office on the other, are in the position of being between the devil and the deep sea.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Lord LUCAS): My Lords, I should like first of all to say that the Army Council owe a great debt of gratitude to Lord Dartmouth for the energy he has thrown into the work of the Staffordshire County Association. We admit that there have been difficulties. As the situation was a new one and as we had little to guide us from the experience of the past, difficulties were inevitable and mistakes

  1495
  were bound to be made; but we have always been ready to rectify them immediately our attention has been called to them. As quickly as the guns are converted—and the conversion was begun very soon after the Act of last year became law—they are being distributed among the batteries of the Territorial Force. The noble Earl referred to the difficulty experienced in finding the means of instructing the men when they had been recruited. Equally difficult has been the question of supplying them at once with permanent staff, and on this matter I would beg for a certain amount of forbearance on the part of the County Associations. The lack of instructors for the batteries is due to the fact that the Artillery of the Regular Army is about to go on its annual training, and the non-commissioned officers intended as instructors cannot at present be withdrawn without destroying a certain part of the year's work, with the result that the batteries would inevitably suffer in efficiency. I can assure the noble Earl that the War Office is really doing its very best to meet the new situation. The noble Earl says the County Associations have been harassed by the number of circulars that have been sent out.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Contradictory circulars.
  LORD LUCAS: The different circulars sent by the War Office to the County Associations are not so much contradictory as developments and elaborations of previous instructions, and are due to special cases brought to the notice of the Army Council by County Associations, to which the original rules that had been laid down could not apply. The circulars that have been sent out have invariably been the outcome of Associations writing to us for instructions. The noble Earl expressed the position quite correctly when he said that the general officer commanding is the authority on purely military questions, and that the County Association is the authority on administrative questions. The County Association, of course, is responsible to the War Office for the way in which it spends its money, but otherwise it is free so long as it keeps
  1496
  within the, expenditure and as long as there is nothing questionable in the way in which the funds are administered. For instance, if they spent an inordinate amount on matters which could not be considered of first-rate importance whilst neglecting matters of greater importance, there would come the day of reckoning at the end of the year.
  It is the desire of the Army Council to encourage the County Associations to manage their own affairs as much as possible. We do not wish to interfere more than we can possibly help; but while the thing is absolutely in its infancy we have had to send advice and counsel occasionally to the County Associations. I can only say that the Army Council no more like sending out circulars than the County Associations like receiving them, and as soon as the County Associations are fully cognisant of the conditions of their work that sort of thing will cease. In some cases the County Associations resent the letters sent them from the War Office; but, on the other hand, many Associations have returned grateful thanks for the information they have received and which has been of great use to them.
  As to the position of the Territorial Force, to which the noble Earl referred, we have always laid down that the Territorial Force is bound to be a Second-Line Army, and that it can never replace the Regular Army as the Force which is required instantly on the outbreak of war. I qualify that only by the statement that there is a clause in the Act which provides that certain members of the Territorial Force, not properly considered as combatant members, may, if they like, take on an engagement to serve with the Regular Army. That applies to such men as doctors. But our view has always been that the combatant arms of the Territorial Force, under peace conditions, cannot be made fit to take their places in the field against trained troops on the outbreak of war without a certain amount of training on mobilisation. Therefore no one, I think, would agree more readily than we should that it is out of the question for the Territorial Army to be regarded as replacing the Regular Army.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH:I did not mean to press the case of the

  1497
  Staffordshire County Association unduly. It is the one that I happen to know most about, and as it was very likely that the difficulties which had arisen in our case had also arisen in others, I took Staffordshire merely as an illustration. I did not wish to make any complaint against the War Office on account of the number of their letters, because I have had communications at the War Office for sometime now which have not yet been answered. I quite understand the difficulty about the guns, but surely there is no such difficulty in supplying the various scientific arms of the force with the necessary equipment for instruction. Surely those should be supplied immediately the unit is recognised.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I think my noble friend may be very well satisfied with having raised this debate, and I am sure all the Associations in the same group with him will be obliged to him for having done so. I think we ought to take note of what the noble Lord the Under-Secretary has just said. It has now been authoritatively laid down as clearly as can be that while in military matters the commanding officers of districts are responsible, for everything connected with administration and financial affairs the Associations are free and unfettered to manage their own affairs without the interference of the clerks or of the staff at the War Office.
  We have no complaint whatever to make against the Secretary of State for War or against my noble friend the Under-Secretary. So far as I can speak as a chairman of a County Association, they have done everything they can to assist us, to give us the very best advice, and to take into consideration any suggestions that have been made either formally or informally. But I have not been four months at work with my Association without having formed a very distinct opinion that the very worst friends the Secretary of State for War has got are in his own household. My noble friend, Lord Lucas, said just now that we had asked for information. Yes, for information on practical points; but we have waited for the answers. We have, however, been inundated with
  1498
  circular after circular on matters with which the War Office had nothing to do, if my noble friend's statement is right that we have to work out our own salvation. Early in the development of the Associations the War Office interfered with us with regard to the salaries of our secretaries and secretariat. They had no right whatever to send us a single line about that. It was clearly laid down in the twenty-first Article of Association that when the recommendation of the Secretary had been agreed to we had entire power as to what we were to pay. Eventually the War Office had to give way.
  Take another instance—that of the calling in of the clothing. We had several contradictory circulars with regard to that. First we were told that we were to call in the clothing to headquarters; next that we were not to call it in but that it might be valued from the books. Very soon afterwards we received circulars from the military authorities to say we were to call in the clothing, and they knew nothing whatever about the other circular that had reached us, I could mention a dozen cases or more in which circulars have been sent out and then altered or withdrawn. I will give the most recent one. Only the other day the War Office sent out a circular to say that we were not to pay our markers. Our Association directed the commanding officers to go on as before, and said they would certainly be paid. Then down came an order to the commanding officers that they were not to pay the markers. I was asked what was to be done, and I replied, "Telegraph to the officers that they are not to obey it. I will be responsible for the money." Two days afterwards I received a circular from the War Office saying that they had recalled this order and that the markers were to be paid. I mention this to show my noble friend Lord Dartmouth is quite right when he speaks of contradictory circulars. If Mr. Haldane could only keep the War Office quiet, the practical men on the County Associations would be able to get to work. I think that if half of the clerks at the War Office were sent on a voyage round the world for the next six months it would be very much better for the Territorial Army.
  LORD LUCAS: May I be allowed to reply to one or two points raised by Lord Heneage? I am extremely sorry if anything I said, in my reply to Lord Dartmouth, could by any possibility be made to convey any reflection whatever upon the War Office staff.
  LORD HENEAGE: No, no.
  LORD LUCAS: Nothing could have been better than the way in which they have worked. Many of them have worked for months together not getting away from the office until late, dealing with an overwhelming mass of detail. As to the contradictory circulars referred to by Lord Heneage, probably the larger proportion of these were sent out because of letters received from the noble Lord himself.
  LORD HENEAGE: I asked for information. I did not ask for circulars, though I did ask very peremptorily for the withdrawal of a good many of them.
  LORD LUCAS: The noble Lord asked for information on many points on which, T admit, information was required. The information was sent to the noble Lord, and then, as other County Associations were in similar difficulties, the information was embodied in a circular and sent all round. It was only in our struggles to satisfy the questions and claims of the different Associations that we had sometimes to alter or recall our previous circulars; but in no instance have we ever made an alteration in any instruction or circular which has not been to the advantage of the County Associations.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order).

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, this is a very short Bill consisting of a single clause. Its object is to remove certain restrictions upon the
1500
holding of land by colonial companies in this country, to which restrictions those companies are at present liable under the Mortmain Acts. The Statute of Mortmain recallsone's early studies of English history, and I think a great many people would be surprised, as I confess I was, to find that that Statute was still in force. But it is in force, and it is still illegal for any corporate body to hold land in this country unless it has first taken out a licence in Mortmain or unless there is a statutory exemption from the provisions of the Mortmain Acts. Those statutory exemptions are given, in the first place, by the Companies Act of 1862, and, in the case of statutory companies, by a clause which is invariably inserted in the special Act of Parliament under which those companies are formed. Those exemptions are operative in the case of companies registered in this country, but they do not exempt companies registered in any of the British Possessions. In the case of those companies a licence in Mortmain must be taken out from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at a cost of £70, in the case of every piece of land which it is desired to acquire. That restriction has been found to be very harsh in the case of certain colonial companies, such as insurance and banking companies, carrying on business in this country, and it is thought that it should be removed. What it is proposed by this Bill to do is to place those colonial companies on exactly the same footing in regard to this matter as that upon which British companies now stand I feel sure that this is a proposal which will commend itself to your Lordships, all the more so when I am able to state that there are no similar restrictions in the case of British companies which desire to hold lands in the Colonies. I beg to move.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, the 16th instant.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Earl Carrington)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have to ask the House to agree to two formal Amendments suggested by my noble friend, Lord Onslow. The first is in Clause 47, to add, after the words—
"Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, the compensation in respect of an improvement made or begun before the commencement of this Act, or made upon a holding held under a contract of tenancy,
the words—
"Other than a tenancy from year to year."
And the second Amendment is to leave out Subsection (2) of Clause 48, namely—
"(2) The expression 'tenancy current on' a specified date shall include a tenancy from year to year current at that date."
Amendment moved.—
"In Clause 47, page 21, line 33, after the word 'tenancy,' to insert the words 'other than a tenancy from year to year.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 48, page 22, lines 39 and 40, to leave out Subsection (2).—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE SPECIAL RESERVE.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War: (1) If he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House at any early date after the adjournment for Whitsuntide the Return which was promised on the 5th May comparing the results of recruiting for the Special Reserve during the first four months in 1908, with the results of recruiting for the Militia in a similar period in 1907; (2)
1502
How is it intended to employ the services of Militiamen who elect to remain in that force until time-expired in event of embodiment. The Militia will have disappeared, and I am rather puzzled how to explain to the men under my command the nature of their service in a force which has become non-existent.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I am sorry we have not yet been able to lay the Return for which the noble Duke asks, but it is practically ready and I can promise it to him immediately after Whitsuntide. As to the second question, in the event of embodiment, I take it that if their services were urgently required they would be attached for the time to the unit most closely resembling the unit of which they were members as Militiamen. Of course, they could not be sent abroad unless they volunteered to go.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I would point out that such a proceeding would be against the Militia Act of 1882, and that is where my difficulty arises. The Act says that you must not—
"Authorise a Militiaman when belonging to one corps to be transferred without his consent to another corps; or where the corps of a Militiaman includes any battalion or other body of the Regular Forces, authorise him to be posted without his consent to that battalion or body."
Section 5 of the Militia Act provides that—
"Where a Militiaman was enlisted or reengaged before the date of any Order or Regulation under this Act, nothing in such Order or Regulation shall render him liable without his consent to be appointed, transferred, or attached to any military body to which he could not without his consent have been appointed, transferred, or attached if the said Order or Regulation had not been made."
I think the noble Lord will see the difficulty in which we are placed.
LORD LUCAS: I think the passages quoted by the noble Duke refer to peace time, and not to embodiment in time of war.

THE TERRITORIAL ARMY.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War: (1) The number of officers required for the Territorial Army, ex-

1503
cluding the Yeomanry; (2) The number of officers who have transferred from the Volunteers to the Territorial Army; (3) The number of officers now serving as Volunteer officers; (4) Excluding the Yeomanry, on 1st May 8,520 men had transferred to the Territorial Army for four years, and 72,179 men for the period of one year only, with the right to claim a free discharge at the end of twelve months. Will the 72,179 men who have transferred to the Territorial Army on the understanding that they can claim a free discharge at the end of twelve months be held to serve for an extra year in the event of the Territorial Force being embodied; (5) The number of recruits who have joined the Territorial Army since the date of its formation; (6) The number of officers and men, including Yeomanry, wanted to complete the establishment of the Territorial Force; (7) What is meant by not allowing a Volunteer unit to transfer to the Territorial Army unless it has enlisted 30 per cent. of the required establishment? The required establishment of an Infantry battalion of the Territorial Army is 1,000 men. Is a Volunteer battalion, therefore, required to transfer 300 men to the Territorial Army before being counted as a unit of the Territorial Army? (8) In the case of a Volunteer battalion with an establishment of 600 men and a strength of 300 men, would every man serving be required to transfer to the Territorial Army before the battalion was counted as a Territorial unit, or would 30 per cent. of the men serving, that is to Say ninety men, or less than 10 per cent. of the required establishment of a Territorial battalion, be accepted as sufficient to justify the transfer? (9) In leaflet No. 2, issued by the War Office, and setting forth the terms of service in the Territorial Force, it is stated that—
"The Territorial soldier is entitled to pay at army rates, including the extra emoluments paid by certain corps while in camp. He does not draw the threepence a day messing allowance given to the Regular Army, but a daily allowance of 1s. would be paid to his commanding officer to improve his messing."
Will the extra emoluments referred to, and a daily allowance of 1s. be continued to the Territorial soldier when called out on permanent service, or will the pay and allowances of the Territorial soldier
1504
during embodiment be precisely the same as those given to the corresponding; branches in the Regular Army? (10) Is it the fact that between 4th April and the present date 208 officers have resigned their commissions in the Volunteers? and (11) What was the percentage of men under twenty years of age in the Volunteer force according to the last annual return, and may not a similar percentage be accepted as true of the Territorial Force?
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, in answer to the first Question, the total number of officers required for the Territorial Army, excluding the Yeomanry, is 10,578. As to the second Question, I am sorry I cannot at the moment give the noble Lord the information he requires. We have not yet been able to make up the numbers. I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means by this third Question. I take it that he wants the number of officers who are still holding their commissions as Volunteers officers, not counting those who have transferred but deducting all those who have resigned That number is 8,543. In regard to the fourth Question, the noble Lord will find that Question 15 (d) on the attestation paper makes it clear that the 72,179 men to whom he refers may be required to prolong their service for a further period not exceeding twelve months in the event of the force being embodied. As to the fifth Question, the number of recruits of all arms who had joined the Territorial Army up to 1st May, which is the latest date to which we have the figures, was 4,936. I cannot give the noble Lord the number of officers in reply to his sixth Question, but the number of non-commissioned officers and men wanted to complete the establishment of the Territorial Force on 1st May was 193,790 of all arms. With regard to the seventh Question, 30 per cent. of the establishment is laid down in the Army Order of 18th March.
LORD RAGLAN: For the Territorial units?
LORD LUCAS: Yes. So that in the case the noble Lord quotes in his eighth Question the battalion would have to raise the necessary 300 men before it

1505
was recognised. That was made clear in a circular memorandum to the County Associations, dated 11th April. As to the ninth Question, the Army Order of 18th March, Part II., Paragraph (1), states that on mobilisation the emoluments of the Territorial Force will conform in all respects to those of the Regular Army. The messing allowance will be made the same as it is in the Regulars. The emoluments which that Army Order refers to are the special pay, engineer pay and corps pay, which will be drawn by the Territorial Force exactly the same as they are now drawn in the Regular Army. The Answer to the tenth Question is that 207 officers have resigned their commissions; and, in reply to the last Question, the percentage of Volunteers under twenty on 1st November last, including boys and trumpeters under seventeen, was a little under 28½ per cent. There is no reason to suppose that that percentage will be very much varied in the case of the Territorial Force.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War two Questions of which I have given him private notice—first, whether in addition to paying the rent due for ranges for last year, the Associations can pay for the rent of ranges for the current year in this year's accounts, or whether such rent must be carried forward into the next year's accounts in order to comply with War Office methods for book-keeping? Secondly, whether, having regard to Paragraphs 65 and 85 of the Financial Memorandum circulated in March, 1908, the Associations can advance money to commanding officers for the current-expenses of taking units into camp out of their Grant for administrative purposes; and if so, whether they can requisition the War Office for repayment of the money so advanced at once, as grants for camp expenses are not paid through the Associations, but through the general officer commanding the district.
LORD LUCAS: If the rent was paid till April last, and it is paid annually, naturally the Association would not tender the rent again, as it would not fall due till April, 1909. As to the second question, the County Associa-
1506
tions are responsible for the travelling of the troops to camp, but are not responsible for the expenses incurred by them in camp. The Association can make an application to the War Office to have sums advanced to cover travelling expenses, but the money spent in camp comes out of the training grant.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, with reference to the appointment of the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the appointment of a Deputy Registrar—Was presented by the Lord Alverstone; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, 16th June. [No. 87.]

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 1 of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland)Act, 1907, in respect to the compulsory acquisition of tenanted land. As this Bill does not bear the explanation of its introduction on its face, and as we are about to adjourn for the holidays, I think, perhaps, it would be convenient if I briefly explained the circumstances under which it is brought in. The Bill consists of only one operative clause, as follows—
"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 Commissioners."
Subsection 3 of Section 1 of the Act of last year runs as follows—
"No tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily unless it is in the occupation of a new tenant to whom this Act applies, and unless the Estates Commissioners, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, and to the cost involved, consider it expedient that the evicted tenant should be reinstated as a purchaser of that land."
Then comes the proviso with which this Bill deals—
"Provided that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry."
I may remind your Lordships of the discussion which took place on that

1507
Amendment. Its design was to carry out a purpose of which, we all approve, although, we were some time before we were able to hit upon a form of words which commended itself to the House as a whole. Its object was to secure that no bona fide tenant who desired to stay should be compulsorily removed by the Estates Commissioners; and the conclusion which, I think, will be clear to everybody who reads the report of the debate in Hansard is that it was in the interest of the tenant, and of the tenant alone, that this proviso was inserted. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, speaking on this Amendment on 23rd August of last year, said—
"The 'caretaker' the nondescripts, the birds of passage, will not be protected under the terms of our Amendment. Then there are other of these planter-tenants who, no doubt, will be perfectly willing to move elsewhere, under the liberal inducements which are to be offered to them; those men are willing to go and need not be considered. What then remains? Only that residuum—that handful of courageous men—who are farming their land properly, who have their farms stocked, who are paying their rent, and who wish to remain where they are."
In the course of the present year a case has occurred on a single estate which has caused the introduction of this Bill. On that estate certain planters came to an agreement with the Estates Commissioners, and it was expected, as we read the Act, that the planters would retire and the evicted tenants be reinstated. But it occurred to the landlord, or some one who advised him, that the section might be read in a different sense. He assumed that not only was the agreement of the tenant to move necessary, but that his assent was also required, and this view was upheld by the Court. The result is that so far as that particular estate is concerned—and the same, of course, would apply to any other estate when the landlord took a similar view, so long as that view is upheld in the Courts—the Evicted Tenants Act of last year becomes nugatory. The object, as we all remember, of that Act, keenly debated and canvassed as it was in this and in the other House, was to produce a kind of eirenicon, a general system of allowing bygones to be bygones; it was an attempt to heal an open sore which, by common consent, was doing much harm in Ireland. We do think it is a very un-
1508
fortunate thing if a landlord, for reasons of his own—whether they be bad or good I do not pause to consider at this moment—is able to prevent the operation of the Act in a case where the planters are perfectly willing to leave. We, therefore, propose that the proviso at the end of the subsection shall not apply in any case where the tenant assents in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners. Of course, I do not expect noble Lords opposite, having only heard the clause read for the first time to-night, to express a final or definite opinion upon it now, but it seemed to me convenient that I should make this statement in moving the First Beading. I do not propose that the Second Reading should be taken until a week or so after the House meets again.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Earl was kind enough to make me aware of the course he intended to adopt with regard to this Bill. I think all my noble friends on this side will agree that it was extremely desirable that he should do this evening something more than formally move the First Beading of the Bill, and that he should lay before us a clear statement of the reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to move in this matter. I was glad the noble Earl went on to say that he did not expect us on this side of the House to pronounce a final judgment upon the proposals of His Majesty's Government this evening. I am not prepared to do so even on my own account; still less am I prepared to commit those with whom I usually act. I will only say this with regard to what fell from the noble Earl, that to the best of my belief he described correctly the main object with which we insisted upon the insertion in the Evicted Tenants Bill of a clause protecting a certain section of what were generally described as planter-tenants. What we desired was that those planter-tenants who were bona fide farmers, who were cultivating their land in a proper manner, and who did not desire to leave their holdings, should be protected from extrusion under the very strong and arbitrary machinery placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. Our great

1509
object was that the protection afforded to these farmers should be real and effectual protection; and I am quite sure that we, on this side of the House, should regard with great jealousy any proposal for new legislation which might render that protection less real or less effectual than it is at present. I add to that that if, inadvertently, we inserted in the Bill words going beyond what was necessary for the purpose of achieving the object we had in view, if it can be clearly shown that the Amendment went beyond the necessities of the case, we should certainly be ready to consider, with an open mind, the propriety of fresh legislation. But it is right, I think, that we should have ample opportunity to consider the manner in which the proposal of His Majesty's Government will work, and that time should be given to noble Lords interested in Irish land affairs to confer with one another, and with those who advise them, as to the propriety of accepting this measure.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to say a few words on behalf of those who come from Ireland and are very much interested in this subject. The speech of the noble Earl has taken me quite by surprise, and I was astonished that, in moving the First Reading, the noble Earl should have dealt at such length with the Bill and quoted extracts from the speech made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition when the clause in question was under discussion last year. If we had had notice of the proposal there are Members of the House who would have been prepared to meet some of the statements which the noble Earl has made. All I wish to say now, however, is that we hold ourselves quite free as to our future action in the matter; and I hope the noble Earl will allow ample time before he puts down the Second Reading, as there are many interested in the question who would like to come over from Ireland to hear what has to be said upon it by the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I "suppose we shall have the Bill in our hands very shortly?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, to-morrow morning.
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday, the 25th instant. (No. 91.)
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Tuesday, the 16th instant, a quarter-past Four o'clock.