Lords Sitting of 16 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:—West London, Barnes, and Richmond Tramways [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Cambrian Railways—(Petition for Bill).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Standing Orders Committee.—Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction; and East and West Junction Railways (Amalgamation) Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that a clause be inserted in the Bill to the following effect, viz.:—That no sale of the amalgamated undertaking shall take place without the consent of the Memorialists Charles William Bartholomew, Richard Donald Bain, and William Howard Gray, which does not provide for the payment to the said Memorialists of the sum of at least £5,000 in cash in respect of the debenture stock mentioned in Section 4 of the Act of 1901, or in respect of the stock of the new Company incorporated by the Bill to be exchanged therefore under the provisions of the said Bill.
Read, and agreed to.
Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]—Reported from the Select Committee, with amendments.
Madras Railway Company (Annuities) Bill.—Read 2a, and committed for Wednesday next.
Great Western Railway (Superannuation Scheme) Bill [H.L.]—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, 1907, VOL. XLII., PART II).
  Returns of produce of crops in Great Britain, with summaries for the United Kingdom.
  EMIGRATION.
  Report on the Emigrants' Information Office, for the year ended 31st December, 1907.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Board of Education—(Education Bill, 1908)—Print of the enactments proposed to be amended or repealed in the schedules to the Bill. (Welsh Department)—Regulations and conditions affecting the recognition by the Board of Education under Section 48 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, of elementary schools in Wales and Monmouthshire (being neither public elementary schools nor schools applying for recognition under any other Act of Parliament) as certified efficient schools.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 27th February, 1908, amending the terms of Paragraph 2 of the Minute of 27th April, 1899, providing for the distribution of the sum available for secondary or technical (including agricultural) education under the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898.
  CHARITY COMMISSION.
  Fifty-fifth Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report and tables for the year 1907.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (SUPPLEMENT TO ANNUAL REPORT OF CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR 1906).
  Returns of persons employed in 1904, in non-textile factories, and summary

  103
  of annual reports of Medical Officers of Health for 1906.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Two Orders in Council, dated 29th February, 1908:—Applying Section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to deserters from Roumanian ships; and Revoking the Order in Council of 2nd November, 1907, relating to the same subject.
  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
  Orders in Council approving memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to:—The continuance of payment of command money heretofore paid to the Captains of the Gunnery Schools at Sheerness and Devonport, and allowances to gunners at those schools on their amalgamation with the Royal Naval Barracks at Chatham and Devonport; Improvements in the pay and position of commissioned warrant officers and warrant officers, and in the pensions of chief and head schoolmasters in His Majesty's Navy; The payment of prize money for proficiency in torpedo practice; Certain modifications in the rules respecting allowances for gunnery and torpedo and the application to men in the service of the regulations abolishing re-engaged pay.
  SPRING ASSIZES ACT, 1879.
  Two Orders in Council, dated 29th February, 1908, constituting Spring Assize Counties, Nos. 2 and 3, for the purpose of the ensuing Spring Assizes.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1907.
  Act of Sederunt, regulating the fees payable in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, and prescribing the form of books of account to be kept by Sheriff Clerks.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF ESSEX).
  Order made by the council of the county of Essex altering certain polling districts in the Mid or Chelmsford Parliamentary Division.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Order made by the council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the Sowerby Bridge Urban District.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 15th March, 1908, granting a retired allowance to James Ranyard Lee, First Class Attendant, British Museum, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I beg to move the First Reading of a Bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1889. I desire to say only two or three sentences in connection with it. The Bill relates to the difficult subject of official secrets—that is to say, documents and information which it is contrary to the public interest should be made public. The Bill will be circulated at once, and will, therefore, be immediately available to your Lordships. I take this notice of it on First Reading because I hope that in the interval before the Second Reading those who are interested in this subject will be so good as to pay attention to it, in order that we may have it thoroughly considered and discussed on the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 1a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed (No. 28).

MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
LORD EVERSLEY LORD EVERSLEY moved an Amendment providing that the Act might be

105
adopted, not "for any borough," but for "any metropolitan borough" by a resolution of the council, passed by a majority of three-fifths of the members present and voting. He said that on the Second Reading of the Bill he had ventured to point out the very great difference between provincial councils and metropolitan councils. In the case of the latter the elections were triennial, the whole of the councillors being elected every three years, and it undoubtedly did happen occasionally that all the councillors elected were of the same way of thinking. But in the provincial boroughs one-third of the councillors retired each year, and in almost every case the boroughs were divided into wards returning three members each; the result was that one member in each ward retired annually. His noble friend Lord Courtney would admit that his scheme would not work to the best advantage in a constituency returning only three members; it was framed mainly for constituencies returning five or more members, and there undoubtedly was something to be said for giving an opportunity to the minority to return a member. In the case of a three-member constituency the scheme would work out not very differently from that of the cumulative vote or the arrangement made in the Act of 1867 for three-cornered constituencies in Parliamentary elections. In those cases the minority had an opportunity of returning one member, and he thought if it were desirable to give an opportunity for the election of a minority member in a constituency returning three members then the cumulative vote or the scheme in the Act of 1867—namely, that of giving two votes instead of three to each elector—would work very much simpler and better than the elaborate scheme proposed in this Bill. Not a single witness who appeared before the Select Committee on this Bill made any complaint in respect of provincial boroughs. The evidence was to the effect that the system of election now in existence, whereby one-third of the members retired annually, gave general satisfaction, and the Municipal Corporations Association, representing the corporations throughout the country, were unanimous in favour of the existing system and against that proposed in Lord Courtney's
106
Bill. He thought, therefore, the weight of authority was very greatly against extending the Bill to provincial boroughs. The effect of his Amendment would be to confine it to metropolitan boroughs.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'any borough' and to insert the words 'any metropolitan borough.'"—(Lord Eversley.)
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHhoped their Lordships would not entertain the Amendment. His noble friend had been very brief in his explanation of the Amendment; so brief that he had left out one most important fact in connection with it. Lord Eversley had forgotten to remind their Lordships that this was a permissive Bill. It enabled boroughs to adopt the alternative scheme if so disposed, but the effect of the Amendment would be to provide that metropolitan boroughs might adopt the scheme, but provincial boroughs might not. It was admitted that the case of the provincial boroughs was not so strong as that of the metropolitan boroughs; but, nevertheless, it was not so weak as his noble friend supposed. There was evidence of the imperfection of the working of the present system in the country boroughs, and he had had representations from one or two provincial boroughs with respect to the application of the Bill to the provinces. He had even received communications from Scotland and. Ireland asking for the extension of the Bill to those countries; but he would not dwell upon that point. He hoped their Lordships would not curtail the freedom allowed by the Bill to municipal bodies generally to adopt for their elections a system of proportional representation.
LORD ASHBOURNE, while admitting the force of what had been said by Lord Eversley, thought there was a good deal in the point brought out by Lord Courtney that this was a permissive and not a compulsory Bill. As the measure was an experimental one he thought it desirable that it should be left in its present elastic form, and he hoped Lord Eversley would be satisfied with having made his protest.
LORD BELPER, as Chairman of the Select Committee, said the Committee had fully before them all the circumstances mentioned by Lord Eversley, but it was to be remembered that this was, after all, to be an experiment. Many of the provincial boroughs might not care about trying it, and therefore no harm would be done; but if any of them wished to try it, why should they be prevented? He thought it would be rather unreasonable to cut them out of trying the experiment if they wished to do so. The Committee certainly made no proposal to limit the Bill in the way proposed, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
LORD AVEBURYalso opposed the Amendment. Lord Eversley had said that in the country districts there was ample protection for the minority, but he did not explain how that came about. Let their Lordships imagine an election in a provincial constituency where one side had a majority. They carried their candidate one year, the next year the same majority returned another candidate, and the third year the same majority again returned their man. Therefore, although the majority might be a comparatively small one, it secured the whole of the representation. Lord Eversley had expressed the opinion that if this Bill were extended to the provinces, the cumulative vote or the three-cornered system would be preferable to the system set out in the Bill; but he could assure their Lordships that there was hardly anyone who had studied this question and was in favour of proportional representation who did not believe that the system in the Bill was preferable.
LORD ALLENDALEsaid that if the Bill was adopted, the Local Government Board were of opinion that there was no reason why the provincial boroughs should not have the same freedom of making a choice as the metropolitan boroughs. The Local Government Board were not aware that there was any great demand for the Bill, but if the Amendment was carried it would necessitate many alterations of a consequential character. In these circumstances he hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH moved an Amendment in the same clause providing that the Act might be continued in force for any borough by a further resolution of the council passed within six months before the expiration of the further period of three years by a majority of the members present and voting: "and after any such further resolution this Act shall remain in force without any limitation of time." He explained that this Amendment and the other Amendments standing in his name hung together, and were simply intended to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. It was thought that the Bill in its present shape failed to do so exactly. The Amendments fully carried out, in the opinion of Lord Belper, its Chairman, the intentions of the Select Committee.
Amendment moved.
"In page 1, line 21, to leave out from the word 'voting' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'and after any such further resolution this Act shall remain in force without any limitation of time.' "—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
LORD BELPERsaid this Amendment and the others standing in the name of Lord Courtney were for the purpose, as the noble Lord had stated, of bringing the Bill in conformity with the scheme recommended by the Select Committee. Therefore their Lordships could safely accept them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 21, after Subsection (7) to insert the following new Subsection: (8) When this Act ceases to be in force in any borough, one-third of the councillors of which would, but for the adoption of this Act, have retired every year, the particular councillors to retire on the two ordinary days of election next after this Act ceases to be in force shall be determined by lot, in such manner as the mayor may prescribe.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'expiration of six months from the passing of the resolution,' and to insert the words 'adoption of this Act.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 4."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to, and Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.
Re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 29.)

SMALL HOLDINGS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the sum of £100,000 is placed to the Small Holdings Account and at the disposal of the Board up to 31st March next, with the prospect of further grants from the Imperial Exchequer in succeeding financial years, the Board have it in contemplation to take any proceedings under Section 16 of the Small Holdings Act, 1907, to demonstrate the feasibility of the establishment of small holdings in some parts of England where they do not at present exist; also whether the regulations laying down the conditions under which financial assistance will be given to county councils towards the costs of valuation, and the expenses of a local inquiry, etc., promised in the Board's Circular of 1st January, 1908, have yet been issued.
Your Lordships will recollect that one of the principal objects which the noble Earl declared that the Board of Agriculture had in mind was the institution of experiments in different parts of England in small holdings where small
110
holdings did not then exist. That, I think, was founded on the Report of the Departmental Committee, and, inasmuch as a considerable sum of money will be at the disposal of the Board, I am in hopes that the noble Earl the President will be able to inform your Lordships that it is their intention to make use of some portion, at any rate, of that money in the direction I have indicated. Your Lordships will remember that one of the objects of the Act was to stimulate county councils who appeared to be somewhat disinclined to carry out the duties imposed upon them by the Act. I think it will be found that there will be many county councils who will not be very desirous of entering into rash experiments, lest it would involve a charge on the rates; and therefore I very much hope that, wherever the noble Earl finds there is that disinclination and where his Commissioners and the Board report to him that in their belief an experiment might be tried with success, he will be inclined to try the experiment with the funds at the disposal of the Board provided by the Treasury rather than compel county councils to undertake work which they may think will throw a burden on the ratepayers. With regard to the second part of my Question, I merely wish to know whether the regulations have been issued, and, if not, how soon they will be sent out. There is a great deal of anxiety on the part of county councils to know in what position they stand in the matter.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in answer to the Question of my noble friend, the House will be glad to hear that, so far as we can make out at present, there will be no difficulty whatever in making experiments with regard to small holdings. The county councils and landowners generally are meeting us in every possible way, and there is every reason to thank them for the zeal and energy they are showing. Of course, the Small Holdings Act of last Session has been in operation for hardly twelve weeks yet, and the preliminary inquiries are not yet complete, but it is hoped very soon to ascertain

111
the approximate demands of the country, and then we must find out how far the demands are genuine, and how many of the applicants are of the right sort. A great many have already applied, and in Kent, Lord Darnley, the chairman of the committee of that county, reports that 134 applicants have been interviewed, and he and his committee were enabled to approve of 119 at once. Up to this morning 141,008 acres, or 236 square miles, had been applied for. There are over 9,000 applicants on the list, and the applications are coming in every day. In referring to the support which county councils have received from landowners, perhaps I might be allowed specially to mention Lord Dartmouth and Lord Hare wood, whose action has been prominently brought before the Board; and also the Marquess of Anglesey and Lord Boston, who have rendered great assistance in this direction in North Wales. I hope that in the next few years thousands, if not tens of thousands, of hard-working, industrious men will be making an honest and, I hope, a profitable livelihood on the land. As regards the second question, the regulations referred to have not yet been issued, but we are in communication with the Treasury on the subject.
EARL ROSEBERY: I am exceedingly glad to hear from my noble friend his unsolicited tribute to the zeal, energy, and intelligence shown by the English county councils. I suppose he is not prepared at this moment to state off-hand, in behalf of the Government, their reasons for thinking that the Scottish county councils would act differently if they had the powers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Scottish county councils are, under the Bill which unfortunately was rejected by your Lordships the other day, not included because what that Bill was concerned with was taxes, whereas under the English Act it is rates.
EARL ROSEBERY: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, and would only point out that under the Bill of Lord Camper-down, still before your Lordships, the Scottish county councils are so entrusted.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War the following Questions: (1) How many of the 15-pounder guns for the armament of the Territorial Force have now been converted. What further number will be available for distribution at the end of the month; (2) what County Associations have already been supplied with a gun or guns; and (3) in what order will guns be supplied to other County Associations? There is a subsequent question which has recently been brought to my attention, and of which I have given the noble Earl the Under-Secretary private notice—it relates to riding schools. I am informed by one of those gentlemen who have most patriotically come forward to raise a battery of field artillery in my county that it is absolutely necessary that the men should be taught in a riding school; and my own scanty knowledge of horsemanship certainly suggests that in the early stages privacy is of some advantage. I do not know whether anything has been settled, but I hope the noble Earl will be able to answer my Question, namely, whether, if riding schools are absolutely necessary, assistance will be given to the County Associations to provide them.
With regard to the guns for the armament of the Territorial Force, the noble Earl told us the other night that the distribution would depend on the rapidity with which garrison artillery are converted into field artillery. Since that answer was given we have had an interesting debate raised by my noble friend below me, Lord Midleton, in the course of which the opinion of Lord Wolseley was quoted. We also had a very interesting speech from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the cross benches, Lord Roberts, and this morning there is a letter in The Times from Lord Denbigh who has had considerable experience in connection with the Honourable Artillery Company. All these opinions go to prove that there are considerable difficulties awaiting those who are contemplating the creation of a large force of artillery on the conditions proposed, and that badly-trained artillery might be even an actual danger. I do not wish

113
to question what has been said. I have no experience to justify my doing so, but, speaking as a representative of a County Association, I do realise that one of the heaviest duties which has been imposed upon us is the raising of this force.; and, if the Government insist on our endeavouring to raise this large number of men, we shall want all possible assistance from the military authorities. One of the districts in my own county, which we had looked upon as promising ground for raising a battery of field artillery, has, as a result of the debate in your Lordships' House the other day, come to the conclusion that it is most undesirable to raise a force which might be "a positive danger." That is the difficulty in which we are placed.
The point I particularly wish to emphasise in regard to the distribution of guns is this. We are told that the distribution will depend on the rapidity with which garrison artillery are converted into field artillery. I am informed by an officer of considerable experience who will command the brigade in the north of my county, and who has to raise 23 officers and 919 men, that he cannot get the men to convert, or secure recruits, until they get the guns. The guns are not to be given till the men are converted or raised, but the men will not convert or join until they get the guns. The men are hesitating because they have been frequently promised that the new guns are to be given to them; those promises have been so often falsified that the men do not believe in the new guns at all. I am told that one of the converted 15-pounders was seen to-day in the vicinity of your Lordships' House. I did not see it, but I understand it was on view. I hope the guns will be distributed to the County Associations as soon as possible. The Artillery Volunteers have always been handicapped in this way, and I hear that they are threatened with having to do this year's training with the old guns—guns which were old when they were distributed nineteen years ago. If some thing is not done speedily it will be quite impossible for the County Associations to raise the numbers expected of them.
114
I do not know how far the noble Earl has influence with the Government he represents, but I should like, on behalf of the County Associations, to suggest that he and his colleagues should be a little careful about the legislation they introduce. In one district in my county the people are unable to think of anything but the Licensing Bill and what its results in that particular locality will be, and as we had hoped to raise a considerable number of men of various Arms from that district we are again considerably handicapped. If the noble Earl could induce his colleagues to be a little more careful about what they do in regard to general legislation it would be very much better for the Territorial Force. In Staffordshire we have five excellent battalions, one of which will have to go, and it is difficult to say which ought to be sacrificed. A Report was drawn up as long ago as the end of January, but it is still somewhere in the War Office; no one in the country has heard anything of the matter since. I would point out that it is essential that it should be known which particular unit is to be disbanded. We have had instructions from the War Office as to the character of the flag which we who double the part of President of the County Association and Lord-Lieutenant may fly, and as to the character of the cuff to be worn by deputy-Lieutenants when in undress uniform. These are very interesting, but they are not, if I may venture to say so, essential to the success of this scheme, and I think it is more important that these unfortunate men who are to be disbanded should be given that information before we interest our selves with regard to minor points.
EARL FORTESCUE: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to put to him one or two Questions of which I have given him private notice. First, I should like to ask whether the equitation allowance of £1 will be given to mounted men of the Territorial Artillery as well as to the Yeomanry. The desirability of this is obvious. The artillery driver is more skilled than the Yeoman, and if one is deserving of the equitation allowance the other is deserving also. We are not to be allowed, as I understand, to enlist in the new

115
Territorial batteries, artillerymen who are in the Reserve. Therefore, we shall have to rely for drivers either on civilians or on men who have left the artillery for five years at least, and who probably in that time will nave got pretty rusty. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will be able to tell us that the equitation allowance will be granted to all mounted men in the Territorial Artillery. I hope he will be able to tell us, also, that the guns of ordinary batteries when they are issued will be issued complete with a suitable proportion of range finders and signalling apparatus of all kinds. Officers tell me that it is impossible to train a battery properly unless these appliances are there with the guns. Next, I should like to ask whether the compensation for loss of horses announced by the Secretary of State on Thursday, will be given under the same conditions as those stated in the existing Yeomanry Regulations, Paragraphs 303 and 304; and whether veterinary expenses, which are laid down in Paragraph 308 of the Yeomanry Regulations, will still be allowed.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should like to put to the noble Earl before he rises to reply, a question concerning the Volunteer regiment in the north of England, which I have the honour to command. We have converted ourselves from heavy garrison artillery into field artillery, and I gather, from what the noble Earl said the other day, that those regiments that most speedily convert themselves into field artillery will be the first to receive the guns. In the county with which I am connected we have already formed our three field artillery batteries with headquarters at our own drill hall. The question I wish to ask the noble Earl is this, when can we hope to be provided with modern guns? We have loyally undertaken the new duties in our desire to support the Territorial scheme, but there must obviously be a certain amount of lukewarmness until we get the guns.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): Will the noble Marquess tell me the name of his corps?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The 2nd Durham Artillery Volunteers.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Before the noble Earl replies I should like to say that I hope he will take care that the noble Marquess does not get more than one gun before the other County Associations get their guns.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I think it would be as well if, at the outset of my reply, I give the information which I promised to Lord Midleton. The figures for the Reserve of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery on 1st March last were as follows: Total Royal Horse Artillery Reserve, 1,707; total Royal Field Artillery Reserve, 9,815; combined total, 11,522.
In reply to Lord Dartmouth I have to say that forty-eight 15-pounder guns have bean converted and are now being inspected and issued as rapidly as possible. Conversion of these guns is proceeding at the rate of about nine a week. Twelve guns have been issued to twelve brigades in the Western and Scottish Commands. These have been allotted, on the recommendation of the general officers commanding-in-chief, one each to the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th Lancashire Garrison Artillery, and one each to the 1st Shropshire and Staffordshire Garrison Artillery, the 1st Forfar, the 1st Aberdeen, the 1st Lanark, the 1st Mid Lothian, and the 1st Ayr and Galloway Garrison Artillery. In addition to these, orders have already been given to issue one gun each to the 1st, 2nd, and 4th West Yorkshire Garrison Artillery, the 1st Cardigan, the 1st Monmouthshire, the 1st Cheshire, the 2nd East Riding of Yorkshire, the 1st Durham, and the 1st Northumberland Artillery. The issues will be continued at the rate of at least six guns a week, and if possible nine a week, but the general order of the units to which these issues will be made will be governed by the information furnished by the general officer commanding-in-chief of the command in which the unit is located.
As to the provision of riding schools for the training of men and horses for field artillery, expenditure of that kind,

117
as in the case of drill halls, ranges, gun sheds, etc., will be met by grants from Army Funds, wherever the Army Council consider such provision necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the Association. For instance, if the acquisition on lease or other agreement of property of this kind is sanctioned by the Army Council, a grant would be made on the basis of the rent for which the Association is liable. I gathered from the remarks of my noble friend that he had some complaint on the ground of having received no reply from the War Office as to the five existing Infantry units in Staffordshire, one of which is to be disbanded. I am afraid that in regard to this matter there must be some misunderstanding. I have made inquiries, and I cannot trace that any reply is due from the War Office to my noble friend on this subject. I presume that my noble friend drew up a report for the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the northern command, and he, in the ordinary course, would embody that report in the statement forwarded to the War Office in regard to the whole of his command. Any reply from the War Office would be sent to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, who is the proper person to communicate with my noble friend, and to whom in regard to this matter I must refer him. All I have been able to ascertain is that the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Northern Command was informed on 3rd March that he might inform the County Associations of the allotment of units.
As regards Staffordshire, it is proposed that there shall be four infantry battalions of 1,000 strong under the new organisation, instead of the existing five. This will necessitate the amalgamation of two of the existing battalions into one after 31st March, and this duty will devolve upon the County Association. Lord Fortescue has asked whether the capitation allowance of £1 will be given to the mounted men of the Territorial Artillery as well as to the Yeomanry. I understand that the answer to that is no. The second Question asked by Lord Fortescue was whether the compensation for loss of a horse, which has
118
been announced, will be given under the same conditions as those stated in the existing Yeomanry Regulations. New Regulations are about to be issued, but I am not able to speak definitely upon them because they have not yet received Treasury sanction. The maximum compensation for the loss of a horse will be £40. My noble friend's third Question was whether veterinary expenses would be allowed. No allowance beyond £5 will be allowed for veterinary expenses.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I should like to explain the object of my last Question, which was not on the Paper. I had no intention of bringing any complaint against the War Office. I am reserving complaints for a future time. I quite understood that we who represent the County Associations were to indicate the battalion to be disbanded or merged, and that that information was to go, in the first place, to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. In this case that was done; we drew up the Report together. But when I went to the War Office I was told that the Report of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief was somewhere in the building. I now gather that it is by the allocation of units, about which we have been inundated with telegrams during the last few weeks, that the disbanded battalion is to be merged, and we shall get no formal intimation as to which it is to be. As to the guns, I gather from the noble Earl's Answer that one gun has been allotted to Shropshire and Staffordshire. By this scheme these counties have been divided, and I am afraid Shropshire has got the gun. Can the noble Earl tell me whether the gun has gone to the Shropshire side?
[No Answer was returned.]
EARL FORTESCUE: The noble Earl has not answered my Question as to whether range finders and signalling apparatus will be supplied with the guns.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: If the noble Earl will give me notice of any Questions I will give him an Answer.
*THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Where is my gun? Cannot the noble Earl tell me whether Shropshire has got it.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I believe Shropshire has got it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I rise to ask the Under-Secretary to take one matter into consideration. The Earl of Dartmouth stated that he believed one of these guns had been seen to-day in the precincts of your Lordships' House. That was not so. The gun was supplied for the inspection of Members of the other House, and I rise to ask the noble Earl if he will give us an opportunity of seeing what Members of the other House have been able to see. Very many of your Lordships are desirous of seeing this gun, and I would also suggest that one of the new quick firers should be sent down at the same time in order that we may compare them. A similar request was made in the House of Commons, but the Secretary of State replied that the new quick-firing gun could not be got into Palace Yard, and therefore he was unable to show it to Members of the House of Commons. It need not go near Palace Yard in being brought down for the inspection of your Lordships, and I therefore hope that we shall be allowed an opportunity of seeing and comparing these guns.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I will communicate at once with the military authorities and see what can be done in the matter.

LADY CATHCART AND HER TENANTS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask when the correspondence between Lady Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord-Advocate will be presented; and what has occasioned the delay in circulating the letters. I moved for this correspondence on 6th February, and late in that month I asked Lord Hamilton of Dalzell when the letters would be presented, and he replied that they were with the printers. The ordinary meaning of the answer which the noble Lord was directed to give to me was that we were to have the correspondence in two or three days.
120
As the Return had not come to hand, and as there was no information to be obtained from the Scottish Office, I thought it as I well to inquire of the printer, and he informed me that he had returned the correspondence to the Scottish Office on 18th February in print. Therefore for a month these letters have been undergoing a process of incubation in the Scottish office, for what purpose the Secretary for Scotland alone knows. It was stated in another place that permission had been asked of the County Council of Inverness to publish some document. What connection the Inverness County Council can have with a correspondence which took place between Lady Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland I do not at present understand. If we ever get the Papers I suppose we shall see; but, in the mean while, I should like to know why all this delay has taken place.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl I beg to state that the correspondence is actually in the hands of the printer, who will be told to use all possible expedition in printing it. The delay which has occurred has arisen owing to the following circumstances. As the correspondence referred to transactions extending over a period of years it was thought advisable to print with it certain illustrative documents. It was therefore necessary to consider what documents should be included in the correspondence to be presented, and to ascertain whether all such documents were available for publication. A further delay was occasioned by a question being asked on 26th February, in another place, as to whether the Secretary for Scotland would include in this correspondence the Report of a Committee which had been appointed by the County Council of Invernesshire to consider whether land should be take for allotments in the island of Vatersay. These are the reasons for the delay. As I have already stated, the Papers will very shortly be laid on the Table of the House.

THE ARMY.
Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Motion of Viscount Midleton that an humble

121
Address be presented to His Majesty for any Minute of the Army Council approving the further reduction in the numbers of the Regular Artillery, and the Report for 1907 of the late Inspector-General of the Forces so far as it affects "the training and efficiency of the troops under the control of the Home Government, and the readiness and fitness of the Army for war."
*LORD LUCAS: My Lords, the debate of last Thursday covered practically the whole ground of the reforms which are at present being carried out in the Regular Army and in what are at present the Auxiliary Forces. But perhaps I may be allowed to trespass on your Lordships time in an endeavour to reply to one or two of the chief points brought forward in Thursday's debate. The point most reiterated in that debate was that of the present strength of the Army as shown by the Return on the Table. Attention was called by Lord Midleton to the strength of the Army as revealed in that Return; but, with a true perception of the causes of the existing weakness of the Army, he did not attach the blame for that to the present Government as was done by subsequent speakers. I must say I thought the noble Earl the Under-Secretary provided a very complete answer on that point, but it did not deter other speakers from repeating the attack.
If I may be allowed to do so, I would give your Lordships the figures showing how the three years system has affected the particular battalion—the 2nd Durham Light Infantry—which was singled out by Lord Midleton. The three years system was in force from April, 1902, until October, 1904, and that meant that from April, 1905, to October, 1907, not only were the seven years men of from 1898 to 1900 passing into the Reserve, but also the three years men. There was a double drain going on at the same time, and the way in which that affected the battalion in question is shown by the following figures referring to rank and file. In February, 1904, the strength, not including recruits at the depot, was 701, and there were 442 men over twenty years of age. There were at that time 455 three years men in the
122
battalion. The draft required for India in that year was 155; the following year it was about the same. At that time 137 three years men had had to go out to India. In 1905 the three years men began passing out; in 1906 the strength had fallen from 701, two years previously, to 562. The number of men over twenty years of age had fallen to 348, and the draft that had to be sent out had risen to 209 men. The following year the strength fell to 461; the draft requirements rose to 290, and the battalion was unable to meet them all. The men over twenty in the battalion were only 241. The draft required this year was 257, and 232 men have gone, the actual number of rank and file over twenty left being 56. Fortunately we have now passed the worst time, because the three years men are done with and we are gradually climbing up again.
The attack made last week upon the policy of the expeditionary force of 160,000 men was not so much in reference to the size of the force as to the doubt if the number could be realised. I may here parenthetically remark, with regard to a point raised by the Duke of Bedford, that the actuaries do not count as passing to the Reserve every man who enters as a recruit; they took the actual number in normal conditions—estimated over a long period of years and it works out at roughly, one out of every two recruits. The calculations are made on the establishments, and it is quite possible that the number will not be forthcoming; but I cannot see how Lord Midleton's proposal to add 10,000 of the three years men would improve matters. He says, I think rightly, that you can sometimes raise three years men when you cannot raise seven years men. How far the raising of three years men interferes with the getting of seven years men is a question that is difficult to decide offhand. But suppose you do not get sufficient recruits to give you the full 160,000 men, surely you are not going to make things better by increasing your establishments and asking for more recruits still. As I have shown in the case of the Durham Light Infantry, the strength fell so greatly below the establishment that the reducing of the establishment was a

123
mere paper transaction which did not affect the strength of the Army.
I maintain that the reductions in the strength of the Regular Army which have been the subject of so much criticism can only fairly be considered in relation to the whole scheme of Army reform. The idea of an expeditionary force is not a new one, as was indicated in Mr. Wyndham's letter to The Times of last Saturday, in which it is stated that the noble Marquess opposite also had the idea of organising the whole of the troops at home into a large expeditionary force of about the same size as the expeditionary force which Mr. Haldane proposes to organise; and at the outbreak of the South African War we had to despatch about the number the noble Marquess proposes to organise. Having sent that expeditionary force abroad we then were compelled to raise new units of every sort. Fifty-six new batteries of field artillery were raised, and numerous expedients were resorted to in regard to infantry. Those units had to perform double functions—to train drafts for South Africa, and at the same time to provide for home defence.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: What about the Militia?
*LORD LUCAS: I speak under correction, but apparently the Militia was not considered adequate defence for the country at that time. As I say, you were calling upon these units to perform double functions—to train drafts for South Africa, and at the same time to provide for home defence. Fortunately they were not required to discharge the latter duty. Experience of the South African War shows that when you have a force abroad you must also have the machinery in this country for training drafts. This is one of the advantages of the new scheme that may be said to have been bought by the reductions made in the Regular Army. It is a great asset from a military point of view that for the first time in the history of this country we shall be free from the necessity of having to improvise in the face of the enemy.
124
There is another point of view from which we ought to look at these reductions. It was argued on Thursday that if you reduce infantry battalions you thereby reduce the value as a fighting machine of your Regular Army. As a matter of fact the value from a purely military and fighting point of view of an infantry battalion per se is a very indefinite thing. It may be of no more use to you than a bottle of Worcester sauce would be if you had no cold mutton to eat it with. It is fair to regard these reductions from the point of view of divisions, and not from that of single units. The noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, on Thursday drew a lurid picture of the position of a battalion coming out of action with only 300 men and having to be filled up with 700 or 800 Special Reservists. He asked what would be the fighting value of that unit. That raises a very important point, but it only touches on the fringe of it. I believe the usual military procedure in the case of a battalion which has incurred disaster and been cut up is to send it down the lines of communication, and replace it by another battalion. The noble Duke spoke of the men not knowing one another. But what about generals commanding divisions not knowing the officers under them, not knowing who are trustworthy and who are rash, not knowing the men who are slow and those who are quick? That is a part of military organisation to which no attention has been given hitherto. It is not the object of Army organisation to produce a number of single units; but hitherto the British Army has always gone out to fight as a scratch crew. In South Africa there was only one brigade whose units had trained together in peace time. If a proper organisation and a training machine for the army in the field can be secured, the country will have obtained an important military asset very cheaply at the price of these reductions.
I pass to the speech of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the cross benches. I think anyone reading that speech could not fail to interpret it as a sweeping condemnation

125
of the whole idea and the whole principle of the Territorial Force. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal confined his remarks to the artillery, but I think he will agree that what he said about the artillery applied equally to the other branches of the Territorial Army.
EARL ROBERTS: No, certainly not. The artillery is the most scientific branch, and requires a training that is not necessary to the other branches to the same extent. You might raise infantry quickly if you had the officers, but you could not do that with artillery. In saying that, I was supported, not only by artillery officers, but by every officer in this country who has seen service. I hope it will not be thought that I was condemning the whole of the Territorial Army. I thought the framework of that Army was what we wanted, but you must fill it up properly, and you cannot fill it properly with untrained artillery.
*LORD LUCAS: Would the noble and gallant Field-Marshal say that a fortnight's annual training is enough for cavalry having to operate in the most difficult country in the world? And what about the Staff? After all, that requires more training than any other part of the Army.
EARL ROBERTS: If you are going to have a fortnight's training for the cavalry and for the staff, you will have no Army at all.
*LORD LUCAS: Then I do not think I was wrong in saying that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal's speech implied a sweeping condemnation of the whole of the Territorial Army. Because that Army cannot beat off a surprise attack at the outset of a war it is to be condemned. But that is not the function of any second line army. Mr. Haldane and his advisers have no delusion on this head. They have maintained all through that you were not going to get a Territorial Army that was fit to face the enemy at once on the outbreak of war. I think I am not overstating the position when I say that it is impossible for a man to combine a strenuous civil profession with the necessary amount of
126
military training to enable him to go out straight from his home and face a highly-trained enemy. The Army Council realise the absolute truth of the statement of the Norfolk Committee, that if the purpose is to produce a force which can be relied upon to turn out at short notice and defeat an invader, then improvements in the Militia and Volunteer Forces will not be sufficient. This scheme amounts to improvements in the Militia and Volunteer Forces, and therefore, Mr. Haldane and his advisers do not anticipate that the Territorial Army is going to be able to turn out at once, without further training, to resist the best-trained troops that could be put against them. If you contend that a second line Army is going to be of no use you must, to be consistent, show that the Militia has never been of use in this country all through its history. I do not think anyone will go as far as that. The only possible solution of the position raised by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal seems to be this, that if you cannot defend your coasts from invasion during the early months of a war it is absolute madness to send the whole of the Regular Army out of the country. You must keep two or three divisions at home, and, if you do that, you will still have as big a force capable of being sent straight away as it took five months to send to South Africa. But that was not the solution given by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. His solution was that you should give up the idea of raising Territorial Field Artillery and keep Regular Field Artillery in this country. According to his view, therefore, the idea of raising field artillery for the Territorial Army must be abandoned. That means that the Territorial Army can never be an Army in the true sense of the word. However long a war may last, however long the Territorial Force may remain embodied it will never be able to defend this country without the help of Regulars because it will have lost all semblance of being an Army.
EARL ROBERTS: If it is only a semblance it is a sham Army.
*LORD LUCAS: If that view is to prevail the County Associations may as well be disbanded at once, and the Volunteers

127
be allowed to slip back into the slough of disorganisation from which we are raising them and abandon the idea of a second line Army to be gradually moulded and trained so as to be fit in the great crisis of war to defend this country and to fight side by side with the Regulars. Last year the noble Field-Marshal gave a qualified blessing to this scheme. Now, when a critical stage in its development has been reached, and every one was looking for a few words of encouragement from the noble Field-Marshal, he passes this heavy sentence on a yet unborn child because it cannot carry out functions which it was never intended to carry out. I can only regard that as likely to make the task of the County Associations heavier and more difficult than it is at the present time.
LORD WYNFORD: My Lords, as one who has served in the horse and field artillery for a period of sixteen years I ask your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words on this matter as affecting field artillery. Notwithstanding the explanations which were given by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary last Thursday, and by the noble Lord who has just sat down, I think that this Return which has been the subject of debate shows a very unsatisfactory state of affairs as regards that branch of the service. According to this Return we have at the present moment only 9,800 rank and file Regular field artillerymen fit for service. Our expeditionary force will consist of sixty-six field artillery batteries, and their complement at war strength of rank and file, including brigade ammunition columns and first line reinforcements, is 18,600. Now suppose we had had to mobilise on 1st February this year, and suppose, too, that we had had sufficient special reservists to man divisional ammunition columns, we should have had to make up the expeditionary force with 8,800 rank and file Reservists—nearly half the force—and, in addition, denude the remaining thirty-three batteries.
How, my Lords, can we afford to de duct from our present number of efficient men 2,400, the number which the Government contemplate reducing? I think
128
the margin is far too narrow already, when we consider that we have to allow further for reinforcements to India and for the wastage of war, and, in addition to this, that our Reserve will be decreasing annually. Are we to infer that these Special Reservists will be employed in the brigade ammunition columns as well as in the divisional ammunition columns. If so, I think it is dangerous, as it brings them one step nearer the firing line, and I am of opinion that these men will never be fit to take their place in the firing line. They may not be intended to do so, but they are bound to as casualties occur, and it must be remembered that in our latest experience of war we had no trained artillery opposing us and few casualties to replace compared to what we may expect in a campaign against trained gunners. The artillery of the Special Contingent will prove useful in the divisional ammunition columns, and I think the country should be grateful to Mr. Haldane for this provision; but to expect these men, with six months' or even a year's training, to take their place in the firing line is absurd.
I hope the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Roberts will not think me presumptuous, bearing in mind the smallness of my experience compared to his, when I say that I entirely agree with him that partially trained artillery will only be a danger to their own side. I have no faith whatever in artillery which is not properly and fully trained. The noble Viscount Lord Midleton referred in his speech to a lecture given by a very able officer—Captain Vincent—at the United Service Institution in December last, and he quoted some remarks made by General Sir Ian Hamilton at the conclusion of that lecture. Sir Ian Hamilton disagreed with an opinion expressed by the lecturer, but—and this is a point I do not think the noble Viscount brought out—he concluded his remarks by saying that he gave his opinion merely as an infantry officer. A battery in the field is, or should be, the highest trained unit in our Army; it is a machine in which each man forms one of many essential component parts, and any little mistake on the part of one of those men may render the whole machine absolutely useless, and mean disaster to the force of which it forms a unit.

129
In the Memorandum presented to this House last August, entitled "The principles to be kept in view in training the Territorial Force and Special Contingent," it is directed that gun practice for the Artillery Special Contingent is to be carried out in four years out of every six. That is very false economy; but I pass that over because a more important point follows. The training of specialists is very casually laid down. These specialists consist of layers, signallers, range-takers, observers, patrols, etc. They form a considerable portion of a battery—in fact, nearly 50 per cent. of the gunners in the firing line. Now, these specialists cannot possibly be trained in six months with a casual rubbing up every year for fifteen days. To be of any service at all these men require continual training. It is of no use saying that we are going to have four or five times as many men. Five men cannot combine their mental ability and training at will in one of themslves, they cannot all look through one telescope at one time or all wave one flag. My Lords, too many cooks spoil the broth, and it is quality we want rather than quantity. It is for this reason that I view with much concern the reduction of these 2,400 trained men whom we now have. We are told they are not reduced yet, and I hope the Government will see their way to retain these men, if only on the three years service system as suggested by the noble Viscount Lord Midleton. We should then have them continually going through the mill and passing to the Reserve, having learnt, in addition to their drill, those habits of discipline which are so essential to an efficient Army.
There is a point as regards the Special Contingent which I do not think has been touched on yet. These training brigades are already being reduced to mere skeletons, and I presume will be further reduced when there are five partially trained men to every one of those 2,400. May I ask whether the officers are going to be eventually reduced in the same proportions, and, if not, how are these Regular officers, with practically no men and no horses, to keep themselves up to that pitch of excellence which is expected of them? If they are to be reduced, is it possible
130
that His Majesty's Government intend to replace each of them by five officers of the Special Contingent? I have the greatest admiration for those officers of the Special Reserve Artillery who attempt to become efficient, but to become an efficient artillery officer one must start young and devote one's whole service to it; and I do not see how it is possible for these officers, with the best will in the world, to reach that standard which will enable them to take their place in a battery on service. I notice, however, that the supply and training of these officers is still under consideration by a Committee dealing with this subject, and I shall look forward to a further Memorandum at a future date. I would not have addressed your Lordships but that I feel considerable misgiving about the policy of His Majesty's Government as regards the field artillery, and I am firmly convinced that a very large majority of artillery officers hold the same views as myself. I must apologise for going into a few technical details, but I have endeavoured to put the importance of this question before your Lordships to the best of my ability.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest possible interest to the speeches that have been, delivered from both sides of the House, and I venture to think the noble Lord who addressed us last from the Government Benches endeavoured to do what we on this side have tried to prevent—namely, to switch off the discussion from the Regular Army to a panegyric on a force which does not exist, and which, in my opinion, never will exist, at any rate in the numbers the Secretary of State imagines. The noble Viscount Lord Midleton drew attention to three matters of great importance: (1) The loss of numbers in the Regular Army; (2) the loss of quality; and (3) the very serious position in which the country is now placed by being deprived of all assurance that there is any military approbation behind these changes. A reduction of 30,000 men and 500 officers would be a serious question for any Army in the world, and it is particularly so in the case of a small Army like our own. And when on the top of the reduction in numbers there is a great

131
falling off in quality, then the position becomes dangerous. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary, in endeavouring to answer my noble friend, said that this was entirely my noble friend's fault, and was due to the introduction of the three years system. I cannot agree with that, because a considerable time has elapsed since the three years system of enlistment came to an end, and there has been ample time to have recovered from that experiment.
When we examine the White Paper laid before your Lordships and to which the noble Viscount has drawn attention, we cannot fail to see that the numbers of the Regular Army have been allowed to fall to a very dangerous point; and I think it is most unfortunate that no attempt seems to have been made by the War Office to rectify this state of things, although they saw it happening. The noble Earl, replying to the criticism regarding the reductions in the artillery, said that no reduction had been made in horse and field artillery. He avoided all allusion to garrison artillery, in connection with which there has been a reduction of something like 5,000 men. The garrison artillery are physically and intellectually the picked soldiers of the British Army, and as long as you have these men behind the field artillery it was always possible to utilise them in filling up deficiencies. But this reserve will be lost to the field artillery in the future. I am credibly informed that the permanent staff of the Militia artillery is to be very largely reduced if not done away with altogether, and I wish to know if this reduction is to be over and above the present reduction or to be part of the 2,400 of which we have heard so much. The noble Earl repeated the misleading statement with regard to the forty-two batteries; over and over again it has been explained that the fact that those batteries had been but recently raised had prevented them from creating their reserve. Notwithstanding that, however, the noble Earl repeated the statement that such was the state of of the Reserve that no more than forty-two batteries could be raised.
Lord Lucas made some attempt to answer the very serious speech of the noble and gallant Earl on the cross
132
benches. I venture to think that that speech was one of the most serious made in your Lordships' House for a considerable time, and I hope something will yet be forthcoming from His Majesty's Government to mitigate the effect of that speech and to reassure us a little more. Lord Lucas said that if the noble and gallant Earl did not think a fortnight's training sufficient for artillery, how was it possible to train cavalry and infantry in that period? I venture to think that that part of the noble Lord's speech was one of the strongest indictments of the Territorial Force as a whole. I will not labour the point of the Territorial artillery, for I do not think anything I could say would add to the effect of the very serious words which fell from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. I have never yet come across any soldier who believes it possible to form batteries of artillery with the absolutely inadequate training proposed. Lord Lucas made the remarkable statement that no previous attempt had been made at the organisation of the British Army. My memory is not quite so short as that. I remember the attempt that was made by my noble friend below me to organise the Army in Army Corps, and the contempt which was poured upon his efforts by the then Opposition, now His Majesty's Government. Therefore the noble Lord is not correct in saying that the organisation of the Army had not been attempted before.
Then the noble Lord said it does not matter whether you disband battalions, because the important thing is to have divisions and brigades fully organised for war. Well, I would much rather have a scratch brigade composed of well-organised battalions than I would have a well-organised brigade composed entirely of scratch battalions. I cannot help thinking that that must be the inevitable effect of the new organisation as proposed by the Secretary of State for War. Lord Lucas also said that it was for this system of organisation and for this magnificent Territorial Army that we had paid the price of these reductions. We have paid the price, but we have not got the article for which we have paid; and I have extreme doubt

133
whether we shall ever get that article. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary, in the course of his remarks, made some reference to the duty of the military members of the Army Council. I am always sorry that in these debates we do not have the advantage of the presence on the cross benches of the noble Viscount who was at the head of the celebrated triumvirate to which reference has been made in the course of this debate; because it is possible for two people to read the same passages and arrive at exactly opposite conclusions as to what they were intended to convey. I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Earl that if the military members are not satisfied with the proposals of the Secretary of State, then it is their duty to show their dissatisfaction by resignation. That is all very well, but they do not resign. The Army Council appear to have blessed with equal unanimity the scheme of Mr. Arnold-Forster and the scheme of the present Secretary of State. They are complete changes in half a dozen different ways, the present scheme constituting reversals of all previous military advice given to the Secretary of State. After the statement of the Under-Secretary, I suppose we must assume that these officers approve of these kaleidoscopic changes, for they do not resign.
In my opinion it is the business of the Inspector-General to act as the auditor of the nation in regard to our land forces, and the doctrine laid down by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary that the Reports of the Inspector-General were for the private information of the Army Council is not my idea of the duties of an auditor. The auditor of a company is appointed by the shareholders, and it is his business to certify to the accuracy of the accounts. What would be said of a company who contended that the auditor was the servant of, and worked under, the directors, and that his report on the state of the company was entirely for the private ear of the directors? That seems to me to be the War Office idea of an auditor. All I can say is that it is not mine. We have paid the price; there have been destroyed 30,000 men of the Regular Army, and 90,000 of the Militia; what are we going to get for it?
134
We have got nominally a saving of £1,000,000. Will any one on the Treasury Bench assure me that that £1,000,000 has not been obtained by starving the stores? Are the mobilisation stores in a complete state? Is there any surplus ammunition? We have paid the price; are we ever going to get the article?
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I would like to occupy a few moments of your Lordships' time to call attention to one or two points on which we differ from the Secretary of State for War. It has been inferred from the other side of the House that we have changed our opinion on the subject of the Territorial Army, and that what we backed at one period we now condemn. I think the boot is on the other foot, and that some of the promises in regard to training and organisation which were held out when the Territorial Army was being thought of have not materialised. On the subject of training I do not think it is necessary to say anything as regards the artillery, because that point has been admirably dealt with by my noble friend on my right.
As regards the Yeomanry, we were told that enormous strides were to be made in the matter of training, but I maintain that the Yeomanry now will not be as well trained as under the old state of things. As to mobilisation, one of the reasons why we were all anxious to see the scheme come into operation was that we felt that the question of mobilisation was going to be definitely tackled. Many noble Lords twitted the late Government with the fact that, although a mobilisation scheme was promised every year, no scheme arrived. Not only have we not got a mobilisation scheme now, but I do not think we have any chance of ever getting one. May I give your Lordships a statement of what the mobilisation arrangements are? The other day a document was received by the County Associations to the effect that the Army Council consider it most important that the Territorial Force should not, in the event of a general or partial mobilisation, start their horse purchasing operations until the units of the expeditionary force have been completed with the

135
horses required. That means that the mobilisation of the Territorial Army cannot begin until the whole of the horses of the expeditionary force are purchased. It is no good mobilising an Army without horses, and if you have to wait until the whole of the 59,000 horses required for the expeditionary force have been procured, how can you say that any advance in regard to mobilisation has been made? Yet, as I have said, one of the reasons why many persons have been anxious to see the new scheme put into operation was precisely their belief that the mobilisation question was to be definitely tackled.
We were told that the deficiency of from 8,000 to 11,000 officers was going to be dealt with, and £50,000 was put into last year's Estimates in connection with the matter. I believe, however, that not a farthing of that money has been spent on officers, apart from the expenses of the Commissioners who sat to elaborate a scheme. Then I understand that the whole of the benefit of the scheme which was formulated was cut out by reducing the pay the officers were to get. I speak as one who is a believer in the Teritorial Scheme if it is given a chance. If it is going to be starved for money I do not believe in it. I fear that at the present moment the Secretary of State for War is looking, not to those who are backing up his scheme and trying to carry it through—and none are more prominent in this direction than Members of your Lordships' House—but to the extreme Left of his own Party. But is he getting much help there? Are the trade unions coming forward to give him the men? I doubt it. If Mr. Haldane wishes to carry out his organisation and get his men he would surely do better to look to those who have helped him.
There is another point on which we have a difference with the Secretary of State. I refer to the promise which was given that nothing should be taken away until some definite substitute could be put in its place. I agree with the noble Lord opposite as regards the deplorable state in point of numbers of the British Army at the present time. There is some limit to the power of men serving with the colours to absorb
136
Reservists and keep up the efficiency of the unit as a whole, and the only class who could give trustworthy information on this matter—the captain or subaltern of a regiment—was not represented by the witnesses called before the Elgin Commission. If inquiries were made among that class it would probably be found that the opinion is that when a limit of 50 per cent. is passed the decrease of efficiency goes down at a rate which is geometrical rather than arithmetical. Then, as regards the question of the numbers in a battalion and the efficiency of each unit at war strength, what is important is not only their value per se, but as compared to, say, the most efficient unit of the German Army. After all, the point of consideration in regard to a battalion at war strength is that it has to fight somebody, and therefore, it is reasonable to ask how those men could compete with battalions they may have to face.
In the German Army all the men join after their twentieth year—from twenty to twenty-three years of age. The battalions on a peace basis are from 590 to 630, and in one case, that of the rifles, from 630 to 683. Then they have men who have done their term with the colours, and go on and serve as sort of minor non-commissioned officers, and they add to the efficiency of the corps. Then they have their Reservists; they are not brought out in driblets to be trained, but 345,000 are brought out in the year. These matters are thoroughly gone into in Germany and not left to chance. Moreover, they have added enormously to their number of subalterns and have excellent classes for training them. If one of our attenuated battalions was asked to compete against a German battalion, can you expect them to meet on anything like equal terms? I do not wish to touch on the subject of the artillery, but there is one question I should like to ask regarding the actual conditions under which the Regular Artillery is trained. The artillery officers tell me they have only sixty horses per battery. Yet our artillery is the most essential part of our forces. I understand from a statement made in another place by Sir Charles Dilke, who is always well informed on

137
Army affairs, that our horses have gone down by some 800 as compared with last year, and from what one hears it is clear that 1,500 artillery horses are long passed casting age.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer. The Secretary of State for War, speaking in another place, said that in certain circumstances we might require two divisions for service at home in case of invasion. That would at once lower the expeditionary force, but the statement shows that we are at last approaching some point of sanity on the subject of the possibility of invasion. We have arrived at a point when, apparently, the possibility of invasion is to be believed in. Then we have been told that we cannot expect the Territorial Force to be ready at once to act. I believe, however, that the infantry and cavalry could give a very good account of themselves. After all, the question is whether the force will be sufficient, with its small battalions and artillery not trained, to cope with the possibility of an invasion. I venture to think that His Majesty's Government are incurring a grave danger by taking a single man off the Regular Army, or reducing a single unit, whether Territorial or Regular.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I hope that before this debate closes, or at some early date, we may get some more satisfactory reply from the Government to the criticisms of the noble and gallant Earl on the cross benches, with regard to the use of the Territorial Artillery. I am sure we must all sympathise with the noble Lord on the back benches opposite, Lord Lucas. The noble Lord complained of the change as regards the treatment of this beloved child of the present Secretary of State for War, which, he said, started on its career with so many congratulations last year, but now suddenly, at a most critical period of its existence, found itself severely criticised. The noble Lord's evident enthusiasm for the scheme arouses one's sympathy; but I hope he will not think me uncomplimentary if I say that his answer to the criticisms of the noble and gallant Field-Marshall was a feeble one.
138
The noble Lord fell back upon the Report of the Norfolk Commission, who stated that our Auxiliary forces were not fit to be put in the field against first-class troops. He fell back upon that as an excuse for not improving the Auxiliary Army at all. If the noble Lord thinks that, as regards the training of troops and their use in the field, any orders that have been issued are going to change the character of the Auxiliary Army, I can assure him he is very much mistaken. There is not a single order that has been issued that is going to alter one iota the character or utility, as far as units go, of the present Auxiliary Army. In fact, in one small point their efficiency is likely to be reduced. The Secretary of State is being criticised by his own Party for being extravagant in regard to the Territorial Army. Well, he has effected one or two small economies. He has cut down the Yeomanry by a day, and though a field officer is entitled to forage for three or four horses he will only get railway carriage for one, so that he will be discouraged from bringing more than one horse.
I protest against the idea that, at any rate, two branches of the Territorial Army are of no use in case of sudden attack. That may have been said by the Norfolk Commission, but I do not agree with it. I maintain that a Yeomanry regiment, composed of men who can ride and shoot and look after horses in camp, would be of use even in a sudden emergency. What chance under the present scheme has the War Office of horsing either the Territorial Artillery or the Yeomanry in case of sudden engagement? I protest against the noble Lord's assertion that the Territorial Army is not meant for the purpose of resisting sudden invasion. Why, the whole object of raising the Yeomanry and the Volunteers was to resist sudden invasion, and the conditions of service show that that was the intention. To suggest now that this Auxiliary Army has never been of any use for the defence of the country and that the Territorial Army is going to be of use, is an assumption in favour of the scheme of the War Office which I most decidedly refuse to accept.
I remember asking Lord Wolseley what he would do in the event of a sudden

139
raid on the shores of England, and he replied—
"I would pour Volunteers on them."
That would be the use of these bodies all round the coast. They could be on the spot quicker than Regular troops in a great many cases. I ask what are the chances at the present moment of the War Office being able to horse either the Territorial batteries or the Yeomanry? The instructions we have received, one of which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Lovat, show that we are to do nothing. I have never been a believer in the County Associations. The War Office could have done everything by Royal Warrant; they had no occasion to set up any of these petty War Offices. I hold His Majesty's Commission, and it is my business to carry out orders and try to make a success of this scheme. One order issued is that we are to do nothing with regard to horses until the Army is satisfied. That is discouraging, and I hope we may receive some instructions from the War Office which would enable us to set about a practical scheme of registration for the mounted branches of the Territorial Army. I believe it would be perfectly feasible without interfering with what the Regular Army may want. I believe it would be feasible for the Association to set on foot within its own area a scheme which would not be expensive, but would enable officers commanding mounted units to lay their hands upon the horses that are wanted in so short a space of time that their units could be mobilised and put into the field at least two days quicker than under the present mobilisation orders of the War Office.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the debate which has been continued to-night from last week must, I think, be regarded by most of your Lordships, and I think it will be so regarded by the public outside, as distinctly discouraging. I share the hope expressed by my noble friend who has just sat down that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has some expert knowledge of Army matters, will be able to give us information more satisfactory than that which we have up to the present moment been able to elicit from the representatives of His Majesty's Government.
140
I am not going to travel again in detail over the points which have been so well dealt with by my noble friends behind me. Some of their comments have not been traversed, and are not likely to be traversed. There is, in the first place, the question of the reduction of the strength of the Regular Army. It is admitted that the Army has been weakened by something like 36,000 men, including 500 officers and some 2,000 or 3,000 non-commissioned officers, and that nine or ten valuable units disappear from the Army List. The noble Lord who spoke from the second bench opposite in support of the War Office said that these reductions must be considered with reference to the whole scheme of Army reform, and we are quite ready to consider them with reference to the whole scheme; our object is to look about and see in what part of the scheme we are to find compensation for this undoubted weakening of the fighting strength of the Army.
Then there is the reduction of the establishments of the home battalions from 800 to 720 men. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government told us that we ought not to fix our attention too much on single units, that the value of a single unit is a very indefinite thing, and that the reduction of the unit beyond a certain number of men does not after all matter very much. I recall a statement made by the Under-Secretary the other evening when he gave us much valuable information as to the duties and functions of the home battalions, of which he spoke with thorough knowledge. These home battalions have to supply drafts to the battalions abroad, they have to train men, and have on occasion to appear in the rôle of fighting units when duly reinforced by their proper quota of Army Reservists. These are very heavy duties, and I have always believed that if you impose them on a battalion of insufficient strength, you run a fair chance of breaking the heart of the battalion. We were, at any rate, firmly convinced that an increase in the strength of these battalions was essential, and I very much regret that His Majesty's Government propose to undo what we did.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I stated distinctly, in the course of my speech, that upon this question the Government were quite prepared for reconsideration, and, if necessary, for increase of the establishment when recruiting became normal again.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I was about to refer to that. I understand from the noble Earl that the Government are not wholly committed to this reduction, and that when the prospects of recruiting become better, the War Office, with an open mind, will be prepared to consider a return to the old strength. I am glad to have elicited that statement from my noble friend. There is another matter, upon which I do not wish to dwell too much, and that is the effect of these reductions on the strength of the Army Reserve. The Commission presided over by the noble Earl opposite was, if I remember right, emphatic as to the need of a strong Reserve and as to the value of these Army Reservists when they took their place in the battalions which we sent out to South Africa. I therefore greatly regret any changes which will tend in the direction of reducing the strength of that Reserve. It is quite true that at the present moment the Reserve is very strong, but we have to look ahead to the time when the three years men brought in by my noble friend behind me will terminate their period of service End when the strength of the Reserves must drop suddenly and to a very marked extent. All the changes the Secretary of State for War is introducing tend, and must tend, to reduce the Reserves. The matter is capable of mathematical demonstration, you cannot have weaker units and fewer units with a longer term of colour service without automatically weakening the Reserve-producing power of those units.
We are told to look for compensation to the new Special Reserve which His Majesty's Government will call into existence, bat the statements to which I have listened with regard to the Special Reserve, I must say, fill me with considerable misgiving. In point of numbers, they will be fewer than the old
142
Militia, and what will they be in point of quality? Their functions will be to feed the Line, for which they will require some 10,000 men per annum; they will have to make good the wastage of the Reserve, which will require about 11,000 men annually; and, in addition to these functions, they are expected to maintain a somewhat precarious existence as a unit of a kind.
And what kind of a unit will they be, recruited as they are to be recruited? The best men will pass out, and there will remain in the battalion a residuum of the least fit of the lads who enter. Besides this, you are going, I understand, to get rid of all the men over thirty, a change which will still further add to the youth of these so called battalions. When I am told to look for compensation to the Special Reserve, I ask myself what sort of recruits will the Special Reserve pour into the fighting line in the place of the seven years men, thoroughly trained, seasoned and disciplined, to whom we were accustomed in the past? The Secretary of State for War has told the public that the fighting first line of the Army is now organised as it has never been organised before, and that when, in time of need, a great commander steps forward he will find an instrument to his hand at least scientifically more perfect than it has ever been before. Well, I do not know what may be the scientific perfection of the instrument, but when I consider its practical value I fail to see how there is a great improvement on the instrument we have known in the past.
I wish in particular to say a few words on the subject of the artillery. When the Government of the late Lord Salisbury were in power the question of the artillery was very carefully considered by His Majesty's then advisers. Before the South African War we had added fifteen batteries, and by the time we went out of office we, had added in round figures, about sixty. I know I shall be told that these batteries thus suddenly called into existence were without their full complement of Reserves and that consequently it was impossible to mobilise them. But no one ever pretended that you could call a battery of artillery with

143
the necessary Reserves into existence by a mere stroke of the pen, any more than His Majesty's Government can call a new Territorial Army and Special Reserve into existence by merely preparing a paper scheme for the purpose.
I was rather amused when the Under-Secretary revealed to us as a new discovery that the proper complement of guns was five to every 1,000 men. The discovery is a very old one. I have in my possession a copy of a Minute which I prepared for Lord Salisbury's Government, in which I applied—advised by Lord Wolseley who was then Commander-in-Chief—for the increase of artillery to which I just now referred, upon the ground that it was necessary, in order to give us the very proportion of five guns per 1,000 men which apparently now finds favour with the military advisers of the Crown. We instituted this important increase of artillery, and I cannot help regarding it as most unfortunate that a large proportion of the batteries then added to the artillery are now to be reduced, to mere training batteries with only two guns apiece. I understand there are to be something like forty men per battery, and the gaps are to be filled up by men trained on a Militia basis, who must naturally be unfit to take the place of skilled men in the field.
I will not refer to the matter further, for it has been thoroughly dealt with by Lord Wynford, who has addressed us this evening for the first time with a knowledge of the subject derived from the fact that he had for some time the honour of holding a Commission in the Royal Artillery; but I desire to say a few words in regard to the artillery of the Territorial Army. I understand that the same proportion of five guns per 1,000 men is to obtain in the Territorial Army, and that 196 batteries of artillery are to be created. I can only describe this as a most tremendous plunge. Are we sure that we can get the men? Are we going to get officers? Are we sure of getting horses? Are there reasonable grounds for believing that ranges will be available? And when you have got all these things, are there sufficient reasons for believing that under the conditions
144
that will prevail you will attain that degree of efficiency without which artillery is not only useless, but much worse than useless? The speech of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal holds the field. Lord Lucas treated my noble and gallant friend not quite fairly, because he represented him as having denounced the whole Territorial Force, lock, stock, and barrel. But, if I remember aright, my noble friend went out of his way to express his obligation to Mr. Haldane for having created the Territorial Force, and it was only with regard to the artillery of that force that he spoke strongly. My noble friend voiced the general uneasiness of the public in regard to this question, and he voiced, not only that, but I believe the unanimous opinion of every officer who has ever made public his view with regard to the artillery question, and of every soldier of eminence, from Napoleon I. down to the present Army Council.
What was the noble and gallant Earl's description of the Territorial Artillery? He said that, even if we could get them and mobilise them in time, they would be useless against professional troops. Surely we must make our calculations on the assumption that it is professional troops that they will be called upon to meet. But I may be told that after all this Territorial Artillery is the best that we can get and that we must be grateful for it, and that they will make up in point of number for what they lack in point of quality. I am afraid that that statement cannot be reconciled with the statement of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal; for he told us that not only would these insufficiently trained artillerists be useless, but that they would be a source of positive danger to those with whom they serve. And he went so far as to say that the penalty they would pay in action for their want of sufficient training and discipline would be the penalty of annihilation. That is a serious statement coming from so high an authority, and we have a right to ask whether that statement is seriously challenged, and, if so, on what authority it is challenged. All that I and my friends, who have also served at the War Office, can say on that point is that our military advisers gave us

145
a clear and unambiguous opinion on the value of this partially trained artillery.
Unless the noble Earl's statement can be challenged, and unless the impression which that statement created can be removed, then I venture to say that His Majesty's Government can scarcely do otherwise than reconsider their whole position with regard to this question of the Territorial Artillery. I say that they should do so not only because it is due to the public generally, but because they are bound to do it in fairness to the County Associations which they have called into existence all over the country. You have given these County Associations a very hard task, but the hardest nut you have given them to crack is this formation of batteries of artillery. If they are to approach that task without a reasonable prospect of success, I say you are imposing on them a burden which you ought not to ask them to bear. I can scarcely resist repeating a conversation which I had the other day with a friend of mine to whom it was suggested that he might aid a County Association, with which I am connected, in raising artillery. He said—
"I will do anything that the Association asks me to do; but if you ask me to raise artillery, I cannot help asking myself what kind of artillery I am likely to be able to raise in this part of England, and whether I may not produce something which is of no value."
That feeling prevails in many parts of the country.
The Secretary of State for War the other day announced that it was impossible to put heart into the Territorial Forces unless we showed that we relied on them for all arms of the Service. I think that is a statement that requires careful examination. I endeavour to project my mind into the future and to imagine a body of Territorial troops engaged with the enemy, and I ask myself whether it would put more heart into them to know that they were supported by, let us say, a brigade of Regular Artillery, or, let us say, by two brigades of the home-made article. I will ask a question on this point. Are noble Lords opposite able to point to any foreign country in which an experiment anything like this is being tried? I think I can tell them of one, if not of two cases, which scarcely fit in with their
146
theory. I am told on what I believe to be good authority that in Austria it has been thought desirable lately, to attach Regular Artillery to the Territorial troops, and I am told that in Switzerland the artillery has lately been taken away from the Cantons and placed under the Federal Government for the reason that the Cantonal Artillery was thought to be not sufficiently trained or qualified.
I am not going to suggest to His Majesty's Government that they should drop their scheme. But what I do suggest, and earnestly beg that they will take into consideration, is that before they commit themselves beyond recall to this colossal project of raising 196 batteries of Territorial Artillery, they will try the experiment in a few carefully selected districts. If it succeeds, by all means let them push the experiment further, and no one will be better pleased than the noble and gallant Field-Marshal if he finds that his anticipations are mistaken.
There is only one other point on which I need say anything more. My noble friend has moved for Papers. The Under-Secretary gave a two-fold answer. He said, in the first place, that he would not produce the Papers, and, in the second place, that there were no Papers to produce. He said that there were no decisions, no records, and no minutes.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I said that the matter was discussed at a meeting of the Army Council, but that there were no minutes.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If there is no official document which can be given to the House, is it impossible for the noble Earl to find some means at any rate of informing the public how it is that this tremendous revolution in military opinion has been produced? If there are grounds for such a complete departure from the old traditions, let the public know them, and, above all, let the County Associations know what the grounds are.
As for the Report of the Inspector-General, of course if that is a privileged document we shall not press for its production. But there, again, I must say, that it seems to me a little

147
hard that nothing should be given to Parliament and the public. I ask you to remember that the appointment of an Inspector-General, who was to be regarded as the Auditor-General of the public in regard to military questions, took place concurrently with the abolition of the appointment of Commander-in-Chief. In the distribution of duties that prevailed before that abolition, the Commander-in-Chief was entrusted with the general command and inspection of the Forces. The Commander-in-Chief was usually a Member of this House. He frequently took part in our discussions, and it was always possible for him to reassure the public, or perhaps sometimes to alarm the public, if he thought it necessary. But the Inspector-General is a much more remote and impalpable person, and if we are to get nothing from him, I do think that those who take an interest in the efficiency of the Army have some cause to complain. At any rate, I trust that some means will be found to give to Parliament and the public a general idea at all events of the grounds on which this new departure in the artillery has been decided on.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I shall at this hour of the evening say what I have to say in as few words as possible; and partly for that reason, and partly because I do not feel that I am competent to answer Questions of detail, I am afraid I cannot attempt to reply to some of the many questions which have been put by noble Lords on the other side of the House. But I wish to reply definitely and distinctly to one of them—to the question of stores for the Territorial Army. I have to say that there has been no reduction in the stores of the Regular Army, and the guns and ammunition for the Territorial Force are surplus to the requirements of the Regulars. I was surprised to hear what Lord Harris said on the subject of the provision of horses, because I myself, as president of a County Association, have already been consulting with the chairman as to the provision of horses in my county. I have no doubt the noble Lord is correct with regard to the Papers issued, but I
148
think it stands to reason that the County Associations would be well advised as soon as possible to exert themselves in regard to the provision of horses.
LORD HARRIS: We have been distinctly told we are not to do anything with regard to horses until the Army is satisfied.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: I do not mean that we should interfere with the Army The noble Marquess appealed to me on the ground of my having some acquaintance with military affairs to say whether the Reservists who were called into the ranks in the South African war were fit for the purpose to which they were put. I certainly can endorse the statement that this was the opinion of the Commission. As far as the numbers of the Reservists were concerned, they were then supplied under the system of enlistment now again in force, and the Special Reserves would, at any rate, have as much training as, if not more than the Militia. In the opinion of those who are qualified to judge, we ought to have in the Special Reserve men as capable of serving with the Line as the Militia Reserve formerly was. The noble Lord who opened this debate was not quite fair to the Secretary of State. He said that the Secretary for War was drawing away the public mind from the Regular Army, his references to which were an oasis in the desert of references to the Territorial Army.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Hear, hear.
*THE EARL OF ELGIN: But the noble Viscount has forgotten how long it is since he has been out of office, because if my right hon. friend is able now to argue the case of the Territorial Army with energy it is because in 1906 he dealt first with the Regulars. I think also that the noble Lord is not quite fair in asking for the views of the expert advisers of the Government. After all, these officers are responsible to the Government. Their advice is freely given to the Secretary of State, but if it was made public that responsibility would become unbearable. The phrase "Auditor-General" was merely a phrase which has

149
been taken to indicate the general position which the Inspector-General should occupy, and not to lay upon him in any sense the special duties which the auditor of a company discharges. But if the noble Lord wants to know how this matter has been dealt with in the past, I would remind him that, in reply to a question in the House of Commons on 15th March, 1905, as to whether he had received the Report of the Inspector-General of the forces for 1904, and whether it was intended to lay it before Parliament, Mr. Arnold-Forster said that the Report had been received by the Army Council, but that it was not intended to make it public, that the essence of a Report of this kind was that it should not be made public. It seems to me that the Secretary of State must necessarily act on the advice he receives from his confidential officers, and that it is impossible to hold that they should be questioned in any way.
A good deal turns on the question, What is expert evidence? Noble Lords know very well from the practice in private Bill Committees how, when expert evidence is produced on one side, it is almost certain to be contradicted by expert evidence on the other side. Military experts are really in the same position. In this connection I can quote the noble and gallant Lord on the cross benches (Lord Roberts). I had once the honour of examining the noble and gallant Lord as an expert, and of putting a question to him which was so essentially for military expert advice that we only consulted three field-marshals. The noble and gallant Lord and another field-marshal gave opinions which were diametrically opposed to each other, and when the third field-marshal was asked for his opinion he declined to give any opinion at all, on the ground that the two former opinions showed that strategy was not an exact science. I never undervalue any opinion which is given by the noble and gallant Lord on a question like this now under discussion. If I did I should stand alone, not only in your Lordships' House, but in the country; and I accept what the noble and gallant Lord stated, that his one desire was to use his experience for the benefit of his country.
150
Not only as a Member of the Government, but as president of a County Association which has been considering what, if any, artillery is to be introduced, I have been personally interested in this question. If it was so clear as it seems to be now to many noble Lords, why was not the question raised during the debates of last year? The main point of the noble Lord's criticism is an expression of his belief that the men would be insufficiently trained. In proof of that contention reliance is placed on the period of training found in the regulations to be observed in ordinary circumstances. Before, however, I accept this proof I would ask whether or not it is a reasonable hypothesis in the case of invasion? I admit that it is not impossible to argue on these lines, but I also hold that it may be represented as going beyond the bounds of reasonable calculations. What does it mean? It means the concurrence of three ex-ordinary events. There must be at one and the same time the despatch of an expeditionary force of 150,000 men; secondly, a disaster to the Fleet which must be sufficiently serious to leave it hors de combat; and, thirdly, there must be an invasion. There is no precedent in the history of this country for a concurrence of these three events.
As far as I know there is only one precedent, viz., that of the South African war to illustrate the first contingency of the despatch of so large a force as 150,000 men. But that is subject to qualification. Lord Lovat suggested that it might turn out to be possible to use only four divisions and to leave two divisions at home. That may be so, but I am considering the case put forward in the debate, and assuming that the whole of the expeditionary force of 150,000 men is to be used. But in this matter events must follow in a sequence. There could be no expeditionary force despatched if the Fleet was disabled before that step was taken. If the Fleet was disabled first, the force would remain at home and become a garrison. If there was no disaster to the Fleet, are we to anticipate a serious invasion? The noble Lord said that we must always expect to have an invasion.

151
Without using the word "raid," may I not put it in this way? Supposing there was an invasion and a foreign force was landed: if the Fleet still held the seas, how would that force be able to get supplies and reinforcements? But, suppose that all went against us, and that the disasters of which I have spoken followed each other in their order. In the first place, the first step to be taken is the despatch of the expeditionary force. How long would it take to despatch a force of 150,000 men across the sea? I think I could ask the noble Marquess to give an opinion on that point with great confidence. In the South African war the pressure to send out troops was enormous. The first troops left this country on 1st August, 1899, and it was not until 31st July, 1900, that 150,000 men were in South Africa. What is to happen during this year? During this year the future garrison of the country, according to the scheme of the Government, will be embodied and trained. Before the last man sailed, therefore, and before any serious disaster happened to the Fleet, there would be in this country a force trained for several months. The force would not only be ready, but would be posted in the position, it was called upon to occupy. No doubt I may be told all this is unproved. How can it be otherwise? But, if anyone accuses the Government of want of preparation, surely it is at least a reply to some extent to say that we have done our best to form a scheme for meeting the emergency, and that we believe, on the strength of our advisers, that it will work.
I should like to say one word to noble Lords opposite. I know that many of them speak and feel with great affection of and belief in the Militia Force in which they have served and which they know so well. I entirely appreciate and sympathise with that position. But may I put it in this way? Parliament has deliberately determined otherwise. Your Lordships' House, joining with the other House of Parliament, has decreed that there should be a new order of things, and His Majesty has enjoined upon us, who represent him in the counties, that we should undertake the duty of organising
152
the new force. Is the course taken by some noble Lords calculated to assist us in that duty? It appears to me that some of the observations, some of the bitterness, which I find in some of the speeches may rather create obstacles and deter men from entering the force. And if I wanted a good illustration of my meaning, I could not have wished anything better than what was said by Lord Dartmouth at the beginning of the debate, when he showed that already he, as Lord Lieutenant of his county, has encountered difficulty, owing to that very cause.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should not have troubled your Lordships again, but there were one or two statements made by the Colonial Secretary which I can hardly allow to pass unchallenged. The whole course of this debate, so far as it has been conducted by the Government, has been to some extent disappointing to us on this side of the House. Even the noble Earl who has just sat down directed his remarks, not so much to justifying the heavy reductions which have been made in our effective forces, as to endeavouring to show your Lordships and the country that there was no cause for alarm, because some further period of training would be possible for the less effective forces. We have entirely failed in this debate to obtain from the Government any assurance that they will take steps of any sort to improve the condition of the infantry. We welcome from the noble Earl the statement that they have not said the last word; but they speak as if there were only one method of enlistment—the seven years method, and that there were no other men to be got under any circumstances. I hope they will think better of that.
With regard to the artillery, I believe I am expressing the opinion, not only of every noble Lord on this side of the House but of every man who has read this debate, when I say that profound uneasiness will be the result of it. The noble Earl said that I had not been fair to the Secretary of State for War in asking for the opinions of the expert advisers. The last thing in the world I should wish to do would be to be unfair, or even unreasonable, in regard to my inquiries; and if, in asking for the

153
opinion of the expert advisers, I have done anything unfair, I can only say it is a discipline to which I have myself been subjected night after night at the hands of the noble Earl's colleagues in the House of Commons. I have been made specifically to say whether Lord Wolseley was in favour of such and such a course, whether Sir Redvers Buller had given his authority to it, and whether in proposing either an increase, or, in some cases a decrease, we could cite military opinion in favour of our proposal. This debate terminates without any military opinion whatever having been set against the opinion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, and the opinion I cited from Lord Wolseley. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary told us, with regard to a particular officer on the Army Council, that he accepted full responsibility; but the noble Earl guarded himself from saying that the officer approved of these reductions.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: As a matter of fact he took full and complete responsibility for the step that was taken. Sir. W. Nicholson joined the Army Council on 18th December, immediately after the Government was formed, and therefore he understood the whole of the change and everything that led up to it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I really do not wish to push this particular point any further, but it is one thing for a man to say that in view of the whole position placed before him, which includes an amount of money which the Government are going to give—it is one thing to say that in those circumstances we must dispense with this, that, and the other, and it is another thing to express the opinion that the country is safe if that is done. The noble Earl says an officer ought to resign if he does not agree, but we have before us something which is impalpable, a body which sits without minutes and without recorded decisions. I think the opinions of the military advisers will be found to vary very considerably when they are tested from a different standpoint. I only wish to refer to two other points. Lord Lucas did a considerable injustice to the efforts which were made in the War Office under the noble and
154
gallant Field-Marshal when he said there was now an organisation which there had never been before, and that, thanks to that organisation of the Regular troops, it was no longer so material if some of them were reduced. So far as I know, there is absolutely nothing with regard to the expeditionary force which has been changed or improved since the organisation which had the sanction of Lord Roberts.
LORD LUCAS: My point was, first, that there had been an enormous improvement in regard to the organisation of the expeditionary force, so that the units that would train together in peace would go out together in war. That was, I said, a great improvement as compared with what happened before. Secondly, I said that nothing had been done by the Conservative Government ever since the war to make any provision for that training machinery which they had to set up very inadequately and in a hurry after war had broken out.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I quite see what the noble Lord means, but it does not meet my point. The noble Lord told us that there was no halfway house, and that you must either trust the Territorial Force or it is no use at all. After our expeditionary force had gone we left behind a sufficient body both of infantry and artillery, to form a stiffening of the Territorial Force as it then existed. I say that that makes the whole difference. You will have no battery of Regulars left which you can mobilise in case of invasion. The noble Lord spoke as if we should never send the whole of our expeditionary force abroad if there were any apprehension of invasion. The Secretary of State the other day pointed out that circumstances might arise in which it would be very difficult for the Fleet to defend this country, and he added that in that event we should have to rely on our Territorial Force for defence against invasion. I will not at this late hour enter into that point, but I submit that to take the experience of the South African War as in any way a criterion of the pace at which we should send troops abroad, as was done by the noble

155
Earl the Colonial Secretary, is entirely misleading. We did not set out to send more than 30,000 or 40,000 men. We did not begin to do that until December, and the press came later. There are men in this country and on this side of your Lordships' House, who believe that if there were to be a raid on a large scale, we should not have six months, not six weeks, perhaps not even six days, in which to mobilise, and I think that the proposal to denude this country of all the Regular troops on whom we can depend, especially in the case of artillery, is one on which we should be granted further explanation. One satisfactory feature of the debate is that the opinions given will make it impossible for the Government to continue their reduction of the artillery. As the Government have stated that the production of such Papers as I have moved for would not be in the public interest, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.