Lords Sitting of 5 March 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with: London and Windsor Motor Roads, Tramroads and Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Herne Bay Pier Bill [H.L.]; Huddersfield Water Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order) and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railway, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction Railway, and East and West: Junction Railway (Amalgamation) Bill [H.L.]; Alliance and other Assurance and Insurance Companies Bill [H.L.]; Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.]; West London, Barnes, and Richmond Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Croydon and Southern District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Camborne Water Bill; London and Windsor Motor Roads, Tramroads, and Tramways Bill. Examiners Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.
Swansea Valley Gas Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly Gas Bill [H.L.]; Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great
818
Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill H.L.]; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [H.L.]; Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Belhaven and Stenton be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Graham (D. Montrose); read, and agreed to.

LONDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]
  LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]

    LONDON (WESTMINSTER AND KENSINGTON) ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move, "That it is desirable that the London and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; the London Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]: and the London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament." In asking your Lordships to agree to the appointment of this Joint Committee, I trust you will forgive me if for a moment or two I remind you of the position of the question of the supply of electrical power to London. The story goes back a long way, but I shall only trouble your Lordships with the history of the matter from the year 1905. In that year one important Bill, called the Administrative County of London Bill, was introduced. That Bill was examined by two Committees, one a Committee of your Lordships' House presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, and the other a Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by Lord Airedale, then Sir James Kitson. In 1906 the London County Council itself promoted a Bill, on the ground that the demand for electrical energy in London and certain surrounding districts comprised in the area of supply was rapidly increasing, that there was every reason to believe: that the demand would continue to increase, and that in the near future the use of electrical energy would be far more general. There was also in that session a Bill promoted by the same parties, as in the previous session

    819
    called the Administrative County Bill, and some dozen more. The Bill of the London County Council was referred to a Committee in the other House, and the Committee reported that in their opinion the preamble had not been proved and gave their reasons therefor. In 1907 the County Council again introduced a Bill, but before it was considered by either House of Parliament it was materially modified, great portions of it being withdrawn, and the Committee to whom it was referred finally decided that it ought to be rejected. The other Bill, the one promoted by the companies, remained until near the close of the session, when it was withdrawn. The position now is that there is no Bill promoted by the London County Council before Parliament, but there are three Bills the names of which appear on the Notice Paper—namely, the London and District Electricity Supply Bill, the London Electric Supply Bill, and the London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill. The first of these is for the formation of an independent commercial company to supply electrical energy to London, the second is to form a joint committee of most of the existing electric supply companies in London for the purpose of supplying the whole of the area, and the third is for what I may call linking up a smaller number of companies in London and enabling them while maintaining their own installations and their own generating stations, to supply electricity in bulk to each other, and, of course, in detail to consumers. I think that the reasons which prompted the London County Council to promote their Bill in the year 1906 are even greater to-day than they were then. There can be no doubt whatever but that it is high time that a supply of electricity for power purposes should be given to consumers in London, and I venture oven to go so far as to say that it is approaching a scandal that they should not be able to avail themselves of that supply from some source or other. It is for that reason, and in the hope that the matter may now be threshed out before what I venture to think is the most competent tribunal which Parliament can possibly appoint — namely, a Joint Committee of both Houses—that I ask your Lordships to send these Bills to such a Committee. I do not know, of course, what view will be taken of them.
    820
    I know that strong views are held, on one hand, that the supply of electricity ought to be given by an ordinary commercial company, and, on the other hand, that it ought to be given by a municipality, either the smaller municipalities or the London County Council; but I certainly think the time has arrived when the whole matter ought to be most carefully considered. It may be that the Committee to which these Bills will be referred will decide that the third and the least ambitious of all the schemes— namely, the one which proposes to link up the existing companies, very much in the same way as the water companies in London were linked up very shortly before the Bill was introduced which enabled a public authority to acquire them—is the best; and, if so, that may prove to be the solution of the difficulty. But in any case I think that this is a matter which may very properly be referred to a Joint Committee, and in the hope that this question may be settled in this session of Parliament, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
    Moved, That it is desirable that the London and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; the London Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]; and the London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.]; be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of; of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Supplementary regulation for secondary schools in Wales (including Monmouthshire) 1907.

  VIVISECTION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Fourth Report, with appendix (minutes of evidence) October to December, 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Accounts of receipts and payments for the financial year from 1st April, 1906, to 31st March, 1907.
  FERTILIZERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906.
  Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations No. 2, 1907, made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
  The American Gooseberry Mildew, and Black Currant Mite (Ireland) Order, 1908.

  MILITIA ACT, 1882.
  Returns of description of qualifications of deputy lieutenants lodged during 1907, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the closing of shops and the prohibition of street trading on Sunday. Was presented by Lord Avebury; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, the 17th instant. (No. 25.)

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, I need only detain you a very few minutes. The subject is a familar one to your Lordships, because a very similar Bill was passed through
  822
  this House in the session before last. Last year a similar Bill was introduced in another place, but I think it was only introduced and was not read a second time.
  As regards the present Bill, I need only remind your Lordships that its first clause deals with some additions which are considered necessary to the schedule of poisons. The second clause, which is an important one from an agricultural and horticultural point of view, enables certain poisonous substances used for sheep dips and other purposes to be sold by dealers who are not chemists, where the need arises, owing to the absence of qualified sellers. The third clause is also an important, but not a controversial one. It provides that where a chemist carries on business at more than one shop there shall be a qualified chemist in charge of each place of business. The fourth clause deals with some amendments to the Pharmaceutical Society's examination, and the fifth clause has to do with the further safeguarding of the sale of certain poisonous substances in common use for household and other purposes.
  But, my Lords, this Bill differs from the previous Bill in that it omits to touch on two subjects about which some controversy took place on the former occasion. There was some question whether or not the Bill should apply to Ireland. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with the arguments pro et con on that subject, and I will state the reason in a moment. The other controversial point related to what should be the powers of limited companies trading as chemists as regards the titles which they could use—ought they to be allowed, or ought they not to be allowed, to describe themselves as chemists and druggists, and use similar titles of that kind. Considerable controversy arose on both those points and we have not included them in the Bill for this reason. There is a sharp demarcation of feeling upon both of them, exhibited, I think, even more strongly in another place than here. We therefore propose that this Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, in order that they may take some further evidence, if they so desire, upon those two points, and make a recommendation upon them to Parliament. We think that time will certainly be

  823
  saved by the adoption of that course, and I hope that the Bill will come back from the Joint Committee in sufficient time to enable those very valuable un-controversial clauses to become part of the law of the land, with such additions on the two disputed points as Parliament may think fit to make after hearing the views of the Joint Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the subject dealt with in this Bill is one of the greatest importance, and it involves considerations which require the most careful attention before legislation is passed. I therefore think the course suggested by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council is a convenient one. It is possible that the matters to which the noble Earl referred in the earlier part of his remarks, though they may not be controversial, may still be open to criticism and difference of opinion, and therefore I assume that what will be referred to the Joint Committee will be the whole Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: And the Joint Committee, I understand, will be able to make such suggestions as they may think right in reference to the clauses in the Bill, and to new clauses which they may think it important should be introduced. The reading of the Bill indicates that, although the subject is susceptible of the clear and simple statement that has been made by the noble Earl, it is one upon which there may be certain misunderstanding. The very definition and ascertainment of what are poisons is a matter open to difference of opinion. The first clause sweeps away the schedule to the Pharmacy Act of 1868. That was in itself a long schedule in two parts, specifying the articles to be deemed poisons within the meaning of that Act. It is, however, to be repealed, and Clause? substitutes for it a very much longer schedule. The Act of 1868 when applied to Ireland in the year 1870 had a very substantial addition made to its schedule, and I have no doubt that at the present moment no one could off-hand, without
  824
  being an expert, say exactly which schedule in reference to both countries could be regarded as at all perfect. The power of addition must always be given in such legislation. You can never stereotype a schedule of poisons at any particular moment; the growth of scientific knowledge may require additions, and I have no doubt that the schedule to the Act of 1868 has been added to by Orders just as the schedule to the Act of 1870 relating to Ireland has been added to by Orders issued by the proper authority there. It is obviously desirable to have a schedule which is intelligible. But in this Bill there are two or three methods of treatment. That may be necessary in view of the difficulty and complexity of the subject. The schedule to this Bill is divided into two parts. In reference to the first part, any chemist selling the poison must know the purchaser or have the purchaser introduced to him; but the remainder of the schedule is not open to that provision. Clause 5 enables regulations to be made in order to safeguard the sale and distribution of certain poisons commonly employed for domestic and industrial purposes, and the clause contains a brand new definition. Why these poisons are not left to be dealt with by existing schedules I do not know, but I am quite sure there is some valid reason worthy of attention. In regard to Clause 2, to which the noble Earl rightly directed attention, I think there is considerable ambiguity as to the class of poisonous substances introduced. They are not called poisons but poisonous substances, and I think it is right to treat them differently, as they are intended for agricultural purposes. But they should be marked. If a person is permitted to sell them he should be bound to put some mark to indicate that, though not exactly poisons, they are poisonous substances. It will be found, on reference to the Bill, that there is this restriction in regard to the sale of poisonous substances for the purpose of sheep dips. That is intelligible. But should not similar cautionary measures be applied to the other poisonous substances sold for agricultural purposes? That is, however, a matter of detail. I only mention it now to indicate the necessity of enabling purchasers to see that they

  825
  are dealing with something which may be detrimental to health and may kill. That is a matter which should not be lost sight of in examining this Bill. The noble Earl mentioned—and I do not dissent from what he said—that it is wise and reasonable to enable local authorities to grant licences for the sale of sheep dips, weed killers, and other poisonous substances for use in connection with agriculture and horticulture in places where the reasonable requirements of the public are not now met. I think it is very desirable, indeed, that some change in this respect should be made. I have known hard cases in Ireland where highly respectable country shopkeepers have innocently sold poisonous matters for agricultural purposes, to discover afterwards that they had by so doing violated the law. Therefore I think it is desirable that this should be remedied. Towards the end of his remarks the noble Earl referred to two controversial matters, one of which affected Ireland. The question of Irish legislation cannot be left out of view here. We are fairly intelligent people in Ireland, and very advanced in our civilisation, but very few of us wish to be poisoned, and therefore we should like to see the subject of poisons dealt with in some clear and intelligible way; and if there is to be an improvement in the law in England we should like to have it extended to Ireland. I do not press the case to any extreme point. I am quite ready to recognise that there may possibly be some difference of opinion; but, if it is not found convenient or desirable to apply the whole Bill, I can see no possible objection to saying that the same schedule of poisons which science has found to be necessary for England should be extended to Ireland. We are on what should be common ground in this matter, and I do not see why there should be any difficulty in applying the revised schedule to Ireland. I am glad the Bill is to be considered by a Joint Committee, and I have no doubt that the matters to which I have referred, and other points, will receive full consideration.
  On Question, Bill read 2a
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I now beg to move, "That it is desirable
  826
  that the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
  Moved, "That it is desirable that the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ENGINEER MILITIA.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War some Questions with regard to the Engineer Militia of which I have given him private notice. I have spent a considerable amount of time in trying to get answers to most of these Questions, and I trust that to-day the noble Earl, after the long notice I have given him, will be able to supply definite answers to at least a certain number of them. My first Question is: Upon whom will rest the responsibility of obtaining officers for the new Special Reserve? Those of your Lordships who have been connected with the Militia, whether as lords-lieutenant or as regimental officers, will know what extreme difficulty there has been for many years, more especially of late years, in obtaining officers. It has come home particularly to myself, because I have the honour to command a Militia regiment of which the establishment of officers is larger than that of any other Militia unit in the United Kingdom. I know from my own expperience that hitherto a very considerable amount of work has devolved on commanding officers of units in trying to find officers to fill vacancies. The War Office has never lifted a finger to assist us, and the matter has been left primarily to the lords-lieutenant; but practically the responsibility of obtaining officers has fallen entirely on the commanding officers of units. The War Office, I am informed, now propose to take the work on itself, but I hope not in the same light-hearted way in which it has taken up other duties connected with the changes introduced by the present Secretary of State for War, because the matter is an exceedingly difficult one, and upon the success in obtaining officers will largely, if not entirely, depend the

  827
  success of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme.
  My next Question is—Will a recruit officer do the six months drill with his unit and the remaining six months with the Regular Forces, or will he only do sixty-three days with his unit? The latest Order I have received is that recruit officers are only to do sixty-three days with their unit. Therefore, I presume that the remainder of the training will be done with units of the Regular Army or at the depots. I do not find any fault with the idea of sending an officer to do a course with the Regular Army after he has learnt a certain amount, but I do view with suspicion the idea that he can be trained from the very first with a unit other than his own. I think every one of your Lordships who has any knowledge of military matters will know that a young officer attached to a strange unit runs the risk of not learning very much, and I therefore trust that the noble Earl will be able to inform us that six months recruit drill at least will be done with the officer's own unit.
  Then I should like to ask the noble Earl what officers will be called up for duty during the six months recruit drill in the Engineers. It would be interesting to know whether the same proportion of officers will be allowed to come up for six months, as have been allowed to come up in the past for sixty-three days or less. Another important question is that of travelling expenses. The tradition that the Militia consisted of county gentlemen who officered the regiments of their own counties has endured to this extent, that travelling expenses are allowed within the boundary of the county only; but as Parliament has successfully legislated the country gentleman out of existence, many regiments are officered by gentlemen not residing in the county, who have expensive journeys to and from training. In the past the Militia was trained for at least four weeks in the year, and in certain cases the Artillery, and in all cases the Engineers, trained for six weeks; but in future no Militia regiment, a s far as I can understand, will be trained for more than three weeks, and Engineers for only fifteen days. It does seem to
  828
  me that it would be a great hardship if officers who were only to be out for fifteen days were required to pay their own travelling expenses. I therefore ask whether Special Reserve officers in future will receive travelling expenses to and from their homes: (a) For annual training; (b) if called up for duty at depots, etc. I trust that the attention of the War Office has been directed to this and that some relief will be given in the desired direction. I remember pointing out to the War Office some years ago the injustice inflicted upon officers in this matter, and the answer I received was that if the expenses were paid it would involve an exceedingly large grant. My comment upon that is that it shows what a very large sum of money the country is extracting from officers who serve in the Militia.
  My next Question is with regard to Regular officers. What establishment of Regular officers will be given to units of the Special Reserve Royal Engineers, and will they be Royal Engineer officers? At the present moment it is laid down that except the adjutant and the quartermaster, the officers of those particular units will consist entirely of Militia officers. I should be glad to have the noble Earl's assurance that that is not going to be altered. Again, I think it would be a gracious act on the part of the War Office if it could see its way to confer on quartermasters attached to the Special Service section the honorary rank of captain in the Army, as is at present done in the case of the adjutant. If it is important for the adjutant, I venture to think it is a great deal more important for the quartermaster. The quartermasters are a most deserving body of officers; no praise can be too high for their services, and the concession would make a considerable difference in their social position. Mr. Smith is a nobody, but Captain Smith is a somebody. The conferring of this honorary rank would cost the country nothing, but it would be very greatly appreciated by a large body of most deserving servants of the Crown. Then I should like to call the noble Earl's attention to the question of the up-keep of the band and the mess. It must be evident that with the reduction of the period of training the band and

  829
  mess will cost more in proportion than with the longer period. I have gone into the figures, and I find that the band of my regiment costs us £300 a year. With the reduced period the cost will be £180, but this the officers will have to meet out of fifteen days pay instead of £300 out of eight weeks pay. I also desire information as to the messing arrangements for the Regular officers attached to the Special Service unit. In future we are told that a certain number of Regular officers will form integral parts of these units. These Regular officers will be the only permanent part of the units except for three weeks in the year. Are those officers to have the use of the band, and of the whole of the messing property, for which they will have paid nothing, and which belong to the Militia officers? If not, what arrangements will be made in regard to the band and the mess? If they are to be handed over to the Regular officers, all I can say is that it strikes me as an exceedingly unfair arrangement. I hope these matters have been considered, and that justice will be meted out.
  I now come to perhaps the most difficult question with regard to a force raised and trained as the Militia is, namely, the question of non-commissioned officers. I should like to ask what number of Special Reserve noncommissioned officers will be allowed to come up for recruit drill. In the past I have been allowed in my regiment to call up for duty with the recruits during the sixty-three days preliminary drill one-half of the non-commissioned officers. Now that the preliminary drill is to be extended to six months I should be glad to know if the same proportion of non-commissioned officers will be -allowed up as before. It is a matter of great importance to get these non-commissioned officers up at this time, because the opportunity afforded at the preliminary drill is the only one we have of instructing them. I look upon the training which they get then as most valuable, the more so as the annual training follows immediately, and the non-commissioned officers fall into their places with a much better knowledge of their duties than if they had not attended the preliminary drill. It is
  830
  most important that these non-commissioned officers should be encouraged to go through the various courses. I should like to know if it is proposed still to allow them to go through the railway course, the Engineer course at Chatham, and so forth, and to encourage them to do so by means of special bounties on passing the examinations.
  Then I should like to ask, will separation allowances be granted to non-commissioned officers when called up for recruit drill or when doing courses? Again, will the War Office reconsider the question of allowing old soldiers to enlist in the Special Reserve as at present? The age limit of thirty will stop them. The old soldiers who join the Militia are an excellent and valuable body of men; they provide a large proportion of the non-commissioned officers, and their knowledge of military duties is of inestimable value. I should look upon it as a great misfortune if these men were prevented from joining the Special Reserve, as would be the case if the age limit remained at thirty. Then I should like to ask whether, if a retired Regular non-commissioned officer enlists in the Special Reserve, he will receive an additional bounty as at present. I trust that the additional bounty is to be continued. I believe that at the present moment something like a third of the Militia are over thirty years of age, and I should like to ask the noble Earl how many men over the age of thirty were in the Militia at the date of the last annual return, and how the loss of these valuable men will be made good.
  There are other points with regard to non-commissioned officers. As the training will now be so short and the non-commissioned officers more important than ever, will an attempt be made to induce retired non-commissioned officers of the Royal Engineers to enlist in the Special Reserve units? If these units are to go straight on active service as they are in peace time it is essential that their officers and non-commissioned officers should be the very best it is possible to obtain, and I think if a few pounds a year bounty and a little judicious advertising of the advantages of the Special Reserve section would

  831
  induce retired sergeants or corporals of the Royal Engineers to join the Special Service section, it would be a great advantage. At the present moment the non-commissioned officers are promoted from the ranks of the Militia on the recommendation of their company officers. A company officer in the future will see very little of his company. In the fifteen days he will hardly get to know the men by name, let alone their characters and qualifications. Therefore, I should like to ask how promotion to non-commissioned officer rank is to take place, and who will recommend for it. I am afraid these units will become what used to be called adjutant's regiments, and that the recommendation for promotion to non-commissioned officer rank will rest with the adjutant.
  As to training, I should like to ask how the fifteen days annual training in engineer units will be allocated, and what degree of efficiency for war will be expected from them. I heard with great astonishment the statement by the noble Earl the other day that it was not necessary that these men should be trained in musketry, because they were only going to be used in future in siege works and on railways. I can assure the noble Earl that I had a company in South Africa, working on the railway, which was fired at every day for two months, and in my opinion to send men ignorant of musketry on advanced siege and railway works would be little short of murder. Are the Royal Engineers in future to be considered a non-combatant corps? Next, I would ask the noble Earl to state the average number of recruits enlisted for the Militia from 15th January to 15th February for the last ten years. The noble Earl took credit to the War Office that 2,531 men had enlisted in the Special Service section since 15th January. That is quite possible, but I have seen a great many Militia commanding officers who have been to the depots to see the recruits, and there is not one single man yet enlisted in the Special Service section who intends to remain in it; they all intend to go on to the Army. These men have probably joined the Special Service section to feed up to the required standard for the Line. In the future, I do not
  832
  think any men will enlist direct into the Army; they will do three months at the depot, receive the bounty of 30s., and then go on to the Regular Army.
  Then I have a question or two with regard to the Engineers. Why was the bridging battalion abolished? Who is to transport the material in future, and who are to make bridges if required in war? It is curious that in this country we are always copying somebody else and I believe the bridging battalion was abolished, primarily, of course, for economy, but, secondly, because the Japanese in the war in Manchuria had no bridging battalion. As a matter of fact, the engineer work of the Japanese during the war in Manchuria was remarkably badly done, and since the war the Japanese have, I believe, devoted themselves to largely increasing the numbers of their engineers. We, on the other hand, are going to the opposite extreme. We have abolished our bridging battalion, and also reduced many other companies of Royal Engineers. In future, I understand, the pontoons will have to be dragged about by the Army Service Corps. If that is the case, it is any odds against the pontoons ever leaving the base. And, even if the pontoons could be got to the river, it is long odds against any persons being on the spot who know how to construct bridges. Those who saw the pontoon brigade bridge the Tugela, admit that it was one of the most beautiful pieces of work they ever saw, and it must obviously be a most dangerous thing to entrust this work, which is often done under fire, to partially instructed men.
  The other day the noble Earl the Under-Secretary stated that I was incorrect in saying that the Submarine Miners had been disbanded. They had, said the noble Earl, been transferred to the Admiralty. Well, either the War Office does not know what it has done, which is quite possible, or else it is unable to explain to the noble Earl what it has done. The Submarine Miners were disbanded straight away, and the men were told, "Good morning; we don't want you any more." This action has produced an exceedingly bad effect on recruiting generally in those districts, where the Submarine Mining Section of

  833
  the Militia existed. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Earl can tell me how many of the men of the late Submarine Mining Engineers have been enlisted by the Admiralty for similar duties. Then I would ask what is to happen to the officers of these disbanded units? And, finally, have any steps been taken by the Admiralty to defend any of our ports by mine fields, search-lights, or similar methods?
  When the Submarine Miners were abolished the duties of defending the ports were handed over to the Admiralty. The mines, I believe, have been sold, and at the present moment I understand that no defences of a similar character exist. I believe it to be quite a matter for discussion whether the system of defending the ports by mine fields is a right or wrong one, but, whether it was efficient or not, it gave a sense of security to the people residing in those particular ports; and I am firmly of opinion that when there is again a war scare, which, naturally, in the course of events will come, there will be a clamour for the restoration of those means of defence. If not, in the event of war the Fleet will be tied to the coast in order to give that appearance of defence which the people of this country will demand. I trust that, even if these units have been disbanded, the plant, if I may so call it, has not been sold, and that the mines and electric cables are still in existence and are being preserved from deterioration by careful storage.
  Many of these are very important points. I cannot think that the War Office sufficiently consider the fact that you cannot pull up by the roots an old institution, which has lasted many hundred years, without affecting men of all classes. This policy has been destructive of the efficiency of the Militia in the past; it will exercise a bad influence on the Special Service section in the future; and I do most earnestly entreat the War Office, if it cannot answer the whole of these Questions, now, to make up its mind as soon as possible to let the force know what is to happen.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I have no personal
  834
  grievance against my noble friend, be cause he gave me private notice of the whole of his Questions; but I do think the fact that the Questions are not on the Paper places your Lordships in some difficulty. I therefore rather regret that my noble friend, when I informed him at the beginning of the week that I would be ready to answer his Questions, did not put them on the Notice Paper.
  LORD RAGLAN: I was actuated by a consideration for the printing bill.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My noble friend asks me, in his first Question, upon whom will rest the responsibility of obtaining officers for the new Special Reserve. In the first instance, we have every hope that the existing Militia officers will accept the new conditions as far as they can, and that for the present at any rate they will form the backbone of the Special Reserve as far as officers are concerned. That they may do this on as large a scale as possible the Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir W. Nicholson, to which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State referred at the recent gathering at the Militia Club, is being appointed. Secondly, as I indicated in a recent reply to Lord Hardinge, we hope to establish the "Officers Training Corps." An Army Order will shortly be issued on the subject. This corps will be specially designed to create a supply of officers for the Special Reserve. Its training, which will be under the immediate control of the Chief of the General Staff, will be devoted to fitting members of Universities and schools for such commissions.
  In his second Question, the noble Lord asks whether a recruit officer will do the six months drill with his unit and the remaining six months with the Regular Forces. The question as to how an officer is to be trained during his first two years of service is still under consideration, as a great number of details have necessarily to be settled. Then my noble friend asks what officers will be called up for duty during the six months recruit drill in the Engineers? Subsequently he put to me a Question bearing on the same subject, namely, will Engineer units be allowed a sufficiency of old hands for the recruits

  835
  training? I will answer Questions 3 and 17 together. Regulations will shortly be issued dealing with this matter; it is proposed that officers and old hands should be called up in much the same way as in the past under the Militia regulations.
  The noble Lord, in his fourth Question asks me whether Special Reserve officers will in future receive travelling expenses, to and from their homes: (a) for annual training; (b) if called up for duty at depots, etc.? Our intention is, when officers are ordered up for military duty by a competent authority, that they should be given their travelling expenses not exceeding the cost of conveyance from and to their permanent residences. We hope shortly to publish regulations on these and similar points of detail. In reply to Question 5, in which the noble Lord asks what establishment of Regular officers will be given to units of the Special Reserve Royal Engineers and whether they will be Royal Engineer officers, I have to say that one adjutant and one quartermaster Regular Royal Engineer officers will be on the establishment of the Royal Monmouth group and on that of the Royal Anglesey group, which will be the only special reserve Engineers.
  Then I come to a point on which the noble Lord laid considerable stress. He asked, can honorary rank of captain be given to quartermasters on appointment to units of the Special Reserve, as is now done in the case of adjutants of Auxiliary Forces and only lieutenants in the Army? In reply to that question I have to say that the grant of this honorary rank to quartermasters appointed to the Special Reserve will be, as in the past with the Militia, governed by Article 51 of the Royal Warrant, viz.:—
  "A quartermaster may be granted the honorary rank of lieutenant on appointment, of captain after ten years commissioned service on full pay, and major after fifteen years commissioned service on full pay."
  Next I am asked what additional allowance will be given for the upkeep of the band? My answer is that the band allowance will not be increased at present. Then the noble Lord desires to know what further allowance will be given for the upkeep of (a) officers' mess; (b) non-commissioned officers' mess? No allowance is given even now for the
  836
  upkeep of officers' and non-commissioned officers' messes. A daily mess allowance of 4s. will be given to each individual officer, and I may point out that this is already largely in excess of that given to the Regular officer.
  LORD RAGLAN: It is the same as the Militia get now.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Then I am asked what number of Special Reserve non-commissioned officers will be allowed to come up for recruit drill? It is not anticipated that it will be necessary in the normal to call up any Special Reserve non-commissioned officers. If and when this is found to be necessary, special instructions will be issued. In his ninth Question the noble Lord asks whether non-commissioned officers will be encouraged to go through the various courses and receive a bounty for doing them as now. The training authorities are now considering what courses of instruction will be necessary under the new arrangements. It is anticipated that they will be much the same as at present. But in any event bounties will be given as now for any courses deemed necessary by the responsible authorities.
  Will separation allowance be granted to non-commissioned officers when called up for recruit drill or when doing courses, is the next question? Separation allowance will be given to non-commissioned officers when up for annual training or when attending authorised courses of instruction. They will not be given the allowance when drilling recruits, as this attendance is voluntary—see Paragraphs 185 and 188 Militia Regulations. Then the noble Lord asks, will the War Office re-consider the question of allowing old soldiers to enlist in the Special Reserve, as the age limit of thirty will stop them? This matter has been very fully considered, and I am unable to give my noble friend any hope that the age limit for enlistment will be extended. Then the noble Lord asks whether, if a retired regular non-commissioned officer enlists in the Special Reserve, he will receive an additional bounty as at present? Yes, an additional bounty of £3—see Appendix 10 of the Special Army Order of 23rd December.

  837
  I am next asked how many men over the age of thirty were in the Militia at the date of the last annual return, and how will the loss of these valuable men be made good. The total number of men (all arms) of thirty and upwards on 1st October, 1907, was 20,629. As my noble friend has already asked this question in connection with some Militia Infantry statistics which I gave, in a recent debate, the Infantry figures corresponding to the figures I then gave would be those in the last published annual return, i.e., the strength on 1st October, 1906. According to the return, the number would be 14,246. As to how the loss of these men will be made good, I may point out that our proposals do not necessarily imply their immediate loss. It is laid down in the Army Order of 23rd December that existing Militiamen who are under forty-eight may transfer to the Special Reserve, and there are no grounds for believing that men over thirty will not remain by re-engaging in the Special Reserve as they have hitherto done in the Militia.
  LORD RAGLAN: But no man over thirty will be able to enlist in future.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes.
  LORD RAGLAN: You must lose -them all eventually.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My noble friend's fourteenth Question reads as follows: As the training will now be so short and the non-commissioned officers more important than ever, will an attempt be made to induce retired noncommissioned officers of the Royal Engineers to enlist in the Special Reserve units? It is not proposed to offer any special inducements to retired noncommissioned officers of the Royal Engineers to enlist, beyond those offered in Appendix 10 of the Army Order of 23rd December, to non-commissioned officers of the Artillery, Engineers and Infantry alike. Next, the noble Lord puts this Question: Seeing the training will be so short that the company officers will hardly see, and certainly will not know, their men, how will promotion to non-
  838
  commissioned officer rank be arranged, and who will recommend for it? The system which at present obtains in the Militia will be followed. We do not anticipate that the somewhat shorter period of annual training necessitates any change.
  Then the noble Lord asks how the fifteen days annual training in Engineer units will be allocated, and what degree of efficiency for war will be expected from them? The fifteen days annual training of the Royal Engineer Special Reserve units will be primarily devoted to instructing them as a unit in the technical duties which they will be required to perform in war, and a syllabus of training is being drawn up. The degree of efficiency will depend on the class of men who enlist and the efforts of the officers of the corps concerned, but must, necessarily, be limited by the time available for training. If expert men enlist as Special Reservists, these companies may attain a considerable degree of efficiency. My noble friend's seventeenth Question—namely, Will Engineer units be allowed a sufficiency of old hands for the recruits training?—I have already answered in dealing with his third Question. Next I am asked, If the trained men do no musketry, how can they be expected to work under fire, certainly in siege work, and probably in railway work (as occurred continually in the South African War) practically unarmed? I have to inform my noble friend that the question as to whether the trained Royal Engineer Special Reservist is to be required to fire a course of musketry has not yet been finally decided. In reply to the next Question as to whether the Royal Engineers will, in future, be a non-combatant corps, I have to say that there is no such intention in the mind of the Army Council.
  I am next asked to give the average number of recruits enlisted for the Militia from January 15th to February 15th for the last ten years. My noble friend, on a moment's reflection, will. I hope, understand that, while I can give the figures for the corresponding month in each of the ten years, it is impossible to give them for the exact dates he has indicated. The only figures

  839
  available are for four weeks from Saturday to Saturday for the nearest period to the dates asked. He will understand this when I explain that the returns we get are weekly, not daily. The average number of Militia Recruits on this basis —viz., for the nearest period of four weeks — is 3,508 per annum. If he wishes, I shall be glad to let him have the numbers for each of the ten years. In taking this average figure, however, it must not be forgotten that it includes the period of the South African war, when all such statistics were obviously affected in various ways.
  The noble Lord then refers to the bridging battalion. He asked, why was the bridging battalion abolished? Who is to transport the material in future, and who are to make bridges if required in war? The Engineer duties of bridging can be taught to the same individuals to whom those of (a) field fortification and demolition; (b) repair of roads; and (c) water supply and encampment will be taught. Under the old Army corps organisation the field companies performed all these duties, although the bridging battalion existed in addition. All bridging work could, therefore, be perfectly well carried out by the field companies, so long as a park of bridging material was kept at some convenient point ready to send up when required. On the introduction of the divisional organisation last year the two field companies allotted to each division were given in a somewhat larger personnel, and increased amount of bridging material to make them independent of the new bridging trains when only small rivers were in question. Two of these new bridging trains form part of Army troops attached to six divisions of the expeditionary force, each transporting the material for 200 yards of medium bridge. These will be sent forward when large rivers have to be crossed, and the actual bridging work will be carried out by the field companies with divisions.
  LORD RAGLAN: Who will transport the material? Will they have their own drivers?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: It will depend on the conditions, on whether large or small rivers will have to be crossed. Then the noble Lord asks, Is
  840
  the War Office aware that other countries are increasing the number of their Engineers (especially Japan) while we have largely reduced the Royal Engineers, and the Militia Engineers are to be reduced by twenty-two officers and 500 men? The War Office is aware of changes in Engineer organisation in foreign armies. Though the establishments of our new Royal Engineer units show a reduction of strength on the whole, the proportion of Engineers to the other arms in the expeditionary force-shows an increase on our former organisation. The reduction arises from the policy of handing over submarine mining to the Navy, and also to a policy based on our sea supremacy, which allows us to make a reduction in our fortress companies. In pursuance of the above policies there will be a reduction of the Militia Engineers, due to the fact that we do not require Special Reservists either for the mobilisation of Engineer units in the Expeditionary Force or to meet the wastage of war. The old Militia field and fortress companies, therefore, are not required, but new railway units and siege companies are being organised from the old Militia units.
  The remaining Questions put to me by the noble Lord are—(23) How many of the men of the late Submarine-Mining Engineers have been enlisted by the Admiralty for similar duties? (24) What is to happen to the officers of these disbanded units? and (25) Have any steps been taken by the Admiralty to defend any of our ports by mine fields, search-light or similar methods? These questions put by my noble friend afford me an opportunity of clearing up a misapprehension regarding the service of Submarine Mining Engineers. What I meant to convey on a recent occasion when this question was before your Lordships was that the care of defended ports which was formerly, to the extent of submarine mining, etc., thrown upon the Army, is now altogether assigned to the Navy. Submarine mining, therefore, ceased to be one of the duties of the Regular Engineers, and, consequently, of the Militia Engineers. This fact I considered to be a likely cause why recruiting for Militia Engineers in a seafaring place like Swansea should fall off. As regards the steps taken by the Admiralty to defend our ports by submarine

  841
  mining or other means, I have no doubt adequate measures have been taken, but what they precisely are would be rather a question for my noble friend who represents the Admiralty.
  LORD RAGLAN: The noble Earl has not answered the Question as to what is to happen to officers of disbanded units of Submarine Miners.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: That is a matter the War Office are still considering.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee—

  L. Archbp. of Canterbury.

  E. Yarborough.

  E. Russell.

  L. Chancellor.

  E. Dartrey.

  L. Archbp. of York.

  E. Feversham.

  E. Lytton.

  E. Crewe. (L. President.)

  E. Ancaster.

  E. Carrington.

  E. Halsbury.

  M. Ripon. (L. Privy Seal.)

  E. Cromer.

  E. Plymouth.

  D. Bedford.

  V. Falkland.

  D. Northumberland.

  V. Hutchinson. (E. Donoughmore.)

  M. Winchester.

  V. Cross.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Knutsford.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Llandaff.

  M. Bath.

  V. Ridley.

  V. Churchill.

  E. Derby.

  V. Milner.

  E. Denbigh.

  V. Selby.

  E. Chesterfield.

  V. St. Aldwyn.

  E. Jersey.

  E. Lauderdale.

  L. Bp. London.

  E. Carnwath.

  L. Bp. Hereford.

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Bp. Southwark.

  E. Portsmouth.

  L. Hastings.

  E. Clarendon.

  L. Clinton.

  E. Malmesbury.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  E. Onslow.

  E. Chichester.

  L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

  E. Beauchamp.

  E. Stradbroke.

  L. Barnard.

  E. Vane. (M. Londonderry.)

  L. Saltoun.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Cawdor.

  L. Kenyon

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Stewart of Garlies. (E. Galloway.)

  E. Lichfield.

  842

  L. Brodrick. (F. Midleton.)

  L. Ampthill.

  L. Reay.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Tweedmouth.

  L. Granard. (E. Granard.)

  L. Monk Bretton.

  L. Herries.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Ranfurly. (E. Ranfurly.)

  L. Ashbourne.

  L. Montagu of Beaulieu.

  L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Kilmarnock. (E. Errol.)

  L. Newton.

  L. Stanmore.

  L. Poltimore.

  L. Burghclere.

  L. Denman.

  L. James.

  L. Oranmore and Browne.

  L. Heneage.

  L. Ludlow.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  L. Newlands.

  L. Curzon.

  L. Elgin. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  L. Avebury.

  L. Alverstone.

  L. Shuttleworth.

  L. Belper.

  L. Allerton.

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  L. Sanderson.

  L. Desborough.

  L. Kinnaird.

  L. Weardale.

  L. Lawrence.

  L. Haversham.

  L. Castletown.

  L. Courtney of Penwith.

  L. Wolverton.

  L. Sandhurst.

  L. Airedale.

  L. Lamington.

  L. Collins.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve as Chairman of the Standing Committee:—

  E. Crewe. (L. President.)

  V. St. Aldwyn.

  E. Onslow.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Burghclere.

  V. Cross.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Chairmen of the Standing Committee, That they have appointed the Viscount Cross Chairman of the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.