Lords Sitting of 24 May 1909

TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional Provision; of the Torquay Tramways Company, Limited, under their Common Seal, together with the proposed clauses and amendment annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
BRISTOL UNIVERSITY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  WEST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EASTBOURNE GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HARROGATE GAS BILL.
  PONTYPRIDD WATER BILL.
    WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LISKEARD AND LOOE AND LISKEARD AND CARADON RAILWAYS (VESTING, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
  WELLS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CONWAY GAS BILL.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
INDIAN COUNCILS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, agreed to.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Llynvi Valley Gas Order and the Coatbridge Gas Order.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Statute for— The National University of Ireland; University College, Dublin; University College, Cork; University College, Galway;
Queen's University, Belfast (made by the Belfast Commissioners:)
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 60.)

MERCANTILE MARINE.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of Wednesday last), and to be printed. (No. 61.)
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
MOVABLE DWELLINGS BILL. [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, last year I introduced a similar Bill with which I did not proceed because a very large portion of it was in process of being dealt with in a Government measure, which, I think, has met with almost universal acceptance in the country—I refer to the Children Act. That Act dealt with the question of the education of

  1111
  children who live in movable dwellings, and dealt with it in a much more thorough way than I or the County Councils Association could have ventured to propose. What is contained in the Bill now before your Lordships is the remainder of that Bill after deleting the part that related to education.
  I am quite aware that on this question there is a good deal of sentiment, and I am very far from decrying that sentiment. I am, perhaps, one of the last persons who ought to decry it, for in common with a noble Lord who is not here, Lord Poltimore, I happen to have had a first cousin some five or six generations ago who was elected king of the gipsies. Therefore, I have some sympathy with a gipsy's life. There is a great deal to be said for a free life in the open air, sleeping beneath the starry canopy of heaven, free from the interference of a socialistic world and with all the pleasures of constant change of scene; and there are times, I confess, particularly in the month of August, when we are discussing very doubtful legislation in the somewhat vitiated atmosphere of this House, when I sigh for such a life. There is also the old historic sentiment. The nomad tribes of Europe, driven by a relentless civilisation to wander into every country, invading every country and conquering none, afford a melancholy instance of the proverb that no nation that did not build ever became great.
  But we must not be carried away too much by sentiment in these days. There are many of your Lordships who are descended from those who came over to England with the Norman Conqueror, but I venture to think that if any of your Lordships were to endeavour to live in a Norman castle, with the hygienic conditions which were common in those days, you would rapidly fall into difficulties with the local authority, and that is a position the hardihood of which is so great that I do not think in these days any one would attempt it, except, perhaps, members of the Judicial bench. We are all bound by sanitary and hygienic rules, and it is impossible to contend that it is justifiable that any body of the community should be entirely free from them in these days.
  It has been argued, however, and perhaps some of your Lordships have received a memorial from the Showmen's Society to this effect, that these people are already
  1112
  under the Public Health Act of 1875, which gives special powers to sanitary authorities to make rules and regulations and pass by-laws, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, to deal with dwellers in vans and tents. It has been pointed out to me, and I daresay will be argued by the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board, that these rules and regulations are quite sufficient to meet the case. But the fact is that, although the powers possessed by the sanitary authorities differ very little from those which by this Bill your Lordships are asked to approve, there is this difference. In the first place, we maintain that a wandering community like those who live in movable dwellings should not, as at present, be subject to ever-varying and ever-changing by-laws, but should be subject to one set of by-laws, and that wherever they go they should carry these regulations with them. The other point is this. Granted that the powers of sanitary authorities are sufficient there still lies this great difficulty, that they take no account whatever of the mobility of the van dwellers, and that is at the bottom of the whole trouble.
  The van dweller settles in a sanitary district. He breaks every law and regulation, it may be, of the sanitary district, but the moment that the sanitary authority begin to move to keep him in order he puts in his horse and leaves for another sanitary district, and the sanitary authority, like Dog-berry, allow him to go and thank the Lord they are rid of him. The sanitary authority have no machinery whereby they can pursue him when he is out of their district, and he proceeds to follow the same course within the new sanitary district. This Bill proposes that these wandering dwellers shall be given some kind of local habitation. They are, in the first place, to be registered, and, secondly, the power of controlling them is placed in the larger bodies of the community—namely, the county councils and the borough authorities.
  I will touch very briefly on the various points raised in the Bill. Every temporary erection which is not intended to be moved and is not naturally moved is left where it is under the regulations, which almost invariably deal with temporary structures, of the local sanitary authority. There is no possible reason why such an erection, however temporary, however in-

  1113
  sufficient in its kind it may be, should not be left under the existing sanitary authority. The difficulties I have pointed out only commence when the temporary dwelling partakes of a movable nature. It has been urged that a movable dwelling should not include tents and light structures of that kind; but after very careful consideration, after trying many alterations and finding all of them more or less unworkable, I am afraid they must be included.
  If the Bill were limited to vans and only to tents and temporary structures so far as might be necessary to bring the accommodation up to the hygienic requirements for the number of people occupying them, you might have the Act entirely evaded by persons living exclusively in tents which they could convey in a vehicle which in no way was used for the purpose of residence. It was for this reason that in drafting the Bill I felt bound to include tents as well as vans; and I am sorry to have to do so, because it renders it necessary to deal with several classes of tents which one would gladly leave out. To make the Bill symmetrical it is absolutely necessary that every dwelling which is designed to be and is liable to be constantly moved should have some place to which you may refer to find out its antecedents and the persons who are responsible for it. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 10 provides that nothing in the Bill shall apply to any movable dwelling used by any portion of His Majesty's naval or military forces or to any encampment which may be certified as under proper supervision by the Territorial Force Association of a county. You will also note that not only canal boats but house boats of all descriptions are expressly excluded from the action of the Bill.
  Clause 1 merely provides for the registration of movable dwellings. Then by Clause 2 the Local Government Board are empowered to make regulations with regard to the registration. It is to be a condition precedent to registration that the registering authority should be satisfied that on sanitary and hygienic grounds these places are fit places for persons to live in, taking into consideration the number of people who will live in them, the question whether they are children or adults, and the question of the sexes. This is a regulation which is common to both urban and rural authorities, and I can see nothing whatever to
  1114
  complain of in it. This kind of regulation is made every day with regard to houses. The regulations as a whole, with this exception, go very little beyond the model by-laws of the Local Government Board. The matters dealt with in Clauses 4 and 5—certificate of registry and power to prohibit encampment—are exactly the class of things provided for in the model by-laws, with the exception, perhaps, of the prevention of fire. Anyone who has any knowledge of these wandering residences knows what a very great danger they are in the matter of fires. Half the fires which devastate moors and woods are due to people living this kind of life, and the necessity for some regulation is very great. In towns the regulation with regard to the sweeping of chimneys to prevent fire is a very analogous kind of regulation. Clause 3 provides that for the purpose of the registration of movable dwellings the registration authorities shall be the county and county borough councils.
  Clause 5 is, perhaps, the one which introduces the most debatable matter into the Bill. That clause provides that—
  Where it appears to any registration authority that the presence of movable dwellings on any specified place or places within their area would be dangerous to the public health or constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood the registration authority may by by-law prohibit such movable dwellings being on such specified place or places and any person acting in contravention of any by-law made under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
  That is, I admit, a very large power, but it is a power much sought by county councils. None of the smaller authorities are willing to take the trouble or go to the expense of dealing with these persons, and the county councils think that they should be under their control. They consider that the county council would be the better authority to deal with them because, being the larger authority, they would be less likely to be swayed by any local or personal feeling, and would be better able to deal with the question as to whether a certain place was or was not suitable for the resort of movable dwellings. Although the camping of one movable dwelling on a certain spot for a short time may create no very great nuisance, yet the constant succession of such movable dwellings may very well constitute a considerable nuisance. The county and county borough councils

  1115
  are given power to deal with the encampment of movable dwellings even on land which is not waste and common land but the property of private individuals.
  Clause 6 provides that it shall be the duty of the sanitary authority having jurisdiction in the place where a movable dwelling is for the time being situate to assist any registration authority concerned in carrying out the objects of the Bill by giving information and otherwise. It has been found by experiment that sanitary authorities are in most cases unwilling to act in matters of this kind on account of the difficulty of following movable dwellings and the expense that would be incurred; but if the work could be done by some other authority the local authority would be only too glad, in many instances, to assist. The proposal in the Bill, therefore, is that the authorities to control movable dwellings shall be the larger authorities, and that the smaller sanitary authorities should assist in the regulation of these dwellings. It is not by any means desired to take away from local sanitary authorities the power they exercise at present, but the fact is they exercise this power so very rarely that it is taking away from them nothing which they ever use. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 merely provide the machinery for carrying out the Bill.
  I sincerely hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I am not prepared to argue that the details contained in it are incapable of amendment, and I am not going to say that they do not, perhaps, suggest the desirability of considerable investigation as to the necessity there is for them and the effect they would have if put into force. But I do say it is very strongly felt by county councils that this is a matter which decidedly needs regulation of some kind, and I think it will be to the advantage of everybody that this question should be ventilated and the matter carefully gone into. I hope, therefore, that whatever happens to the Bill in the future it may at least be allowed to pass this stage.
  As I said at the commencement of my remarks, a portion of my original Bill has been rendered unnecessary by the legislation promoted by the Government. I have hopes that in this case, too, some future Government measure may work a cure. The Local Government Board have at this
  1116
  moment a Bill before Parliament for town planning, and here we have a class of individuals who are daily, almost hourly, planning towns and buildings of their own, varying from day to day and hour to hour, and they do it without any regulation whatever. I do not know whether it will be possible to bring this question within the four corners of such a Bill as that, but I do ask your Lordships to agree that this is a matter which needs consideration, and that it is only equitable and just that people who wander about and live in movable buildings of a very doubtful kind which could not possibly comply with the regulations appertaining to buildings inhabited by any other class of the community should be under some kind of regulations. That they should be entirely free from the regulations necessary both for health and sanitation is a matter which, I think, needs consideration, and which I recommend to the consideration of your Lordships.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHMy Lords, I should like to say two or three words on this Bill. It seems to me that the principal point in the Bill is that for securing the registration of the occupiers of these movable dwellings, and I have no doubt that is a sensible and good provision; but there seems to me no reason why, when an occupier of a movable dwelling obtains registration, he should not be required to obtain at the same time a licence and pay a certain sum for it. I see no machinery in the Bill for his being obliged to take out a licence and to pay a fee for it. It must be remembered that these people have a considerable advantage over other members of the community, for they roam about where they please and pay no rates and taxes. So long as they are favoured with pretty good weather they have a distinct advantage over other people, and it does seem fair that if they are to be dealt with in the manner suggested by the Bill they should be called upon to pay a reasonable sum for a licence to occupy these buildings. The money arising from these licences should be handed over to the councils who have jurisdiction in this matter. I have risen merely to throw out that suggestion. I do not wish to criticise anything in the Bill, and I venture to hope it may receive a Second Reading.
  LORD ALLENDALEMy Lords, as your Lordships were reminded by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, an almost identical Bill was introduced by him last year. It was then my duty to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government and to point out some of the difficulties in the provisions as they presented themselves to the Local Government Board, the Department that would be principally concerned in administering the Bill should it become law. I was then told by some noble Lords that I had displayed lukewarmness in support of the Bill. If I showed a certain amount of caution, it was not, nor will anything I may say to-day be, from any feeling on my part, or on that of the Local Government Board, that the question with which the Bill proposes to deal is not deserving of the attention of Parliament. But whilst fully realising that persons who live the existence which has been described ought not to be a nuisance to other people and a source of risk to themselves, it is found somewhat difficult to frame regulations for their control and to understand how the provisions in the Bill would quite have the effect that is desired by the noble Lord.
  The general object of the Bill, as Lord Clifford has explained, is to provide for the registration and regulation of movable dwellings. These dwellings, I need hardly point out, are already subject to specific legislation under Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, and the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act of 1889. The two main features of the Bill are, first, the registration and control of movable dwellings by general regulations; and, secondly, the proposal to give power to local authorities prohibiting encampments in specified places in their districts. The existing law enables local authorities to make by-laws on some of the subjects dealt with in Cause 2, and many local authorities have already availed themselves of this power. The Bill proposes that there should be some general regulations instead of local regulations, and that their scope should be considerably extended. As I had occasion to point out last year, the Bill in this respect seems to go rather fluffier than is reasonably practicable or desirable, and the Department that I represent are of opinion that the scope of such general regulations will require very careful consideration. I gathered last year that amongst those of your Lordships who supported the Bill there was a general feeling that the people affected
  1118
  should be registered rather than that their existence should be destroyed, and I am afraid that some of the provisions of the Bill, if passed in their present form, would have the effect of altogether exterminating gipsies and others who would come within the scope of the Bill. Therefore I think the Bill will require a good deal of modification in that respect.
  The noble Lord has, I am pleased to say, indicated that he would be prepared to move that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, to which motion I hope your Lordships would agree; and if that course is to be adopted it will certainly save me a good deal of trouble in pointing out difficulties in the Bill at this stage. The intention of the noble Lord apparently is that the Local Government Board shall make regulations with respect to movable dwellings which shall prescribe some sort of standard of fitness, and that the local authorities who register shall have the right to refuse registration to dwellings that they consider insufficient or unsuitable. As I have said, I rather think the result of that would be that those gipsies who do not move about in a van but with a small equipment, perhaps in a small cart with rough material for putting up tents at night, would probably altogether disappear.
  Then I should like to say a word on Clause 5, which, as Lord Clifford said, seems to contain the most debatable provision in the Bill. I question whether it is desirable to give local authorities a free hand in such a matter as prohibiting the encampment of gipsies and others in their districts. Local authorities have, I am informed, sometimes proposed by-laws on this subject, but I understand that the Home Office, to whom these by-laws have been referred, have been averse to approving them, and the same view has been taken in relation to similar proposals which have been made in private Bills. As I have said, the question of registration is certainly not an easy one to deal with; indeed, from the very nature of the case it cannot be easy, these dwellings being movable and it being difficult to trace them and to follow them about. In many cases registration would only be valuable in assisting identification. I think there is a good deal to be said for the suggestion made just now by Lord Zouche that these people when they are registered should be compelled to pay for a licence. As the noble Lord very

  1119
  properly pointed out, they have a great many advantages and are free from rates and taxes, and a small fee for a licence, if it is practicable—and I do not commit myself in the least to it, because I do not know whether it is practicable or not—is certainly a suggestion well worthy of consideration.
  Another matter dealt with in the Bill is that of overcrowding. Local authorities already have power to take proceedings in the cases of tents, vans, and other structures which are so overcrowded as to be injurious to health, and it is questionable whether it would be practicable to go further than this and give them powers beyond what they already possess. The meaning of Clause 6, which makes it the duty of the sanitary authority to assist the registration authority in carrying out the objects of the Bill, does not seem to me to be very clear. The Bill contemplates, apparently, that the registration will be performed by county and county borough councils, but the enforcement of the Bill would lie with the police and local authorities in whose area the van and tent dwellers were found. I would, therefore, suggest that Clause 6 should be omitted, and that in its place a provision should be inserted making it the duty of the county and county borough councils and the police authorities to enforce the provisions of the regulations. Clause 8 provides that every registration authority under the Bill shall, not later than January 21 in every year make a report to the Local Government Board as to the execution of the Act within their area. It seems to me that it would probably be better that every medical officer of health should in his annual report refer to the execution of the Bill in his district. That would be, I think, a better way of dealing with it than that defined in Clause 8.
  To go back to Clause 2, that clause refers to the renewal of registration from time to time. It seems to me that this also would be a very difficult matter to enforce. It would be impossible for a man who had registered in some northern county, for instance, and had removed, perhaps, to the other end of England, to go back to be registered afresh. This, however, is a matter with which, if the Bill goes to a Select Committee, the Committee would have an opportunity of dealing, and I need say any more regarding it. I hope that
  1120
  after the remarks I have made I shall not be accused of having shown lukewarmness in support of the Bill. I have merely endeavoured to point out some of the directions in which, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, the Bill calls for amendment before it can be satisfactorily administered by them; and, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to use the words which fell last year from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in your Lordships' House, but who is unfortunately not in his place this evening. The noble Marquess said—
  I hope we shall not hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading this evening. By doing so we commit ourselves only to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is, I conceive, this, that we do not desire that persons who adopt a nomadic mode of life should thereby emancipate themselves from the laws and regulations to which other members of the community are subject.
  I venture to think that that is the view of your Lordships and if the House is agreed generally on the principle of the Bill and will consent to refer it to a Select Committee, that Committee will have an opportunity of putting the Bill into shape, and of making it more workable, on the lines which I have indicated.
  LORD BELPERMy Lords, I do not wish to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken for the Government into any of the details, because I understand from him that the Government are perfectly willing that the Bill should be read a second time, and that its details should be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of full consideration. If that is done by the general consent of the House I should certainly advise my noble friend to accept the suggestion. I may say that the County Councils Association, in promoting this Bill, have no idea that the details of the Bill could be passed in anything like the form in which they now are. It is clear that, in regard to a delicate matter of this kind, the first legislation should have the fullest consideration that can be given to it by a Select Committee, and if the Bill can be amended in any of the details to which tho noble Lord referred we shall be only too glad to do anything to facilitate that, in order that there may be some legislation which may meet the difficulties that have constantly arisen with regard to these nomad classes. I did not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord

  1121
  Allendale, with regard to Clause 5. No doubt that clause gives certain powers to county councils. Those powers are guarded in this way, that it is only in cases within their area where it would be dangerous to the public health or constitute a nuisance to the neighbourhood for people to put their dwellings in these particular districts that they have this power to actually prohibit encampment. I think a county council is competent to exercise discretion of that sort. But, as I say, if there is any objection to the particular wording of this clause and it can be modified, we shall be only too happy that it should be considered. The Bill was read a second time last year, and I conclude from what the noble Lord has said that the Government are perfectly willing that it should be read a second time to-day before being referred t o a Select Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, the course suggested is the one which was recommended last year by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, and it is the course, therefore, which we should desire respectfully to recommend to your Lordships to-day. We are very glad to hear that the measure is to be referred to a Select Committee. We think that the matter does require very careful inquiry. The scope of this Bill is a good deal wider, I think, than some noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships have indicated. Most of the speakers have spoken of gipsies as if the Bill only referred to gipsies, but it is far wider in its effect. The whole class of showmen, all those who cater for the innocent amusement of the countryside, come within the scope of this Bill. There is no reason, of course, why they should not be under proper regulations, but there is reason for caution in dealing with a matter of this kind. As your Lordships are aware, the association which showmen have formed is very much alarmed at the proposed legislation, and has made representations to your Lordships asking that Parliament should be very careful in what it does in this matter. The Bill would also include the summer encampments of working boys. All those are very wide powers, and when we find that these encampments are to be legislated for, not merely when they are in public places, but also when on private property—
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHIn the case of camps of that kind there
  1122
  would be power to get out of the Bill altogether by obtaining a certificate from the Territorial Association that they were under proper supervision.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI understand that the Territorial Association would only operate in the case of military or quasi-military encampments. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that the Territorial Association is such an admirable body that it might be entrusted with the power of dealing with all encampments. But the point I wish to emphasise is that the scope of the Bill is extremely wide. Of course, if the evils which have to be met are great the Bill ought to be passed and ought to have a wide scope; but the question is, Are the evils great? Are there great objections from a sanitary point of view and from the point of view of fire and disease? It may be so, and we shall, therefore, await with the greatest interest the investigations of the Select Committee which your Lordships will, no doubt, appoint. Personally—and I believe my noble friends behind me agree—I think that is precisely the course which ought to be adopted with this Bill, and when we have the Report of the Select Committee in our hands we shall be able to judge how far the Bill ought further to proceed.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  Moved, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION.
LORD SALTOUNrose to call attention to the work of the Agricultural Research Association and to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he would reconsider his refusal to continue the grant which had been given for many years. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like, in the first place, to tell your Lordships briefly the origin and objects of this association. It was originally established as the Aberdeenshire Agricultural Association in 1875, but in the course of a very few years it undertook other duties and became known under its present name. The subscribers to the association number under a hundred, chiefly in the northern

1123
counties, amongst whom are the Lord-Lieutenant of Aberdeenshire, the Earl of Aberdeen, and the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House, but who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place to-day. But by far the greater number of those interested in this association are farmers. There are some 200 associates who take the keenest and liveliest interest in the proceedings and in the results obtained. The total subscriptions come to somewhere about £145 annually, and to this has been added a grant from the Board of Agriculture, which began in 1891 and up to 1893 was £150 a year and after that was reduced to £100, but in 1900 it was discontinued altogether. I will, however, allude to that again, as the then Minister reconsidered the matter and renewed the grant, which has been continued since that date until 1906.
I know that the noble Earl who is going to reply to me is deeply interested in all farming operations and is keen for the interests of farmers, and I can assure him that it is for their sake that I am calling attention to this matter to-day. I can imagine that one of the arguments which the noble Earl will use, in reply, is that in the course of the last two or three years colleges have been founded for the purpose of experimenting in agriculture, and that these agricultural colleges now carry out this work. But I can assure your Lordships that these colleges, at all events the college in Aberdeen, do not in any way go into research work. The colleges are purely educational and do no research work but only experimental work. They do not in any way attempt to undertake the duties of this association. The objects of this association are—
To obtain reliable and useful information on agricultural subjects by means of scientific investigation and practical experiments and to disseminate information; and to advance and aid in such way as may be deemed expedient the knowledge and the application of agricultural science.
This will show your Lordships that the objects of the association are entirely different from those of the agricultural colleges.
I will in a moment point out some of the chief results which have been accomplished by Mr. Jamieson, the director of research and chief experimenter of the association. I do not know him personally, but I believe that in scientific research work he
1124
is quite a genius. Mr. Arthur Balfour, speaking the other day at Glasgow, described two kinds of geniuses in the course of his speech, and he was speaking on this very subject of research. One kind he described as follows—
Then there was the rarer class of those who seemed born for research, to whom the penetration into the secrets of nature or into the secrets of history was an absorbing and overmastering passion from which they would not be diverted except by the absolute necessity of earning their daily bread. To those men it was all important—not for the sake of the men but for the sake of the community—that they should have a chance of devoting their rare talents to that great work for which God undoubtedly intended them.
That, I believe, is a very accurate description of Mr. Jamieson in regard to his genius for this particular kind of work.
Now let me call your Lordships' attention to some of the principal results which have been obtained by this association. One of the leading results was this, "that insoluble mineral phosphate is utilised by plants, and, if sufficiently ground, increases the produce equally as well as soluble phosphate, which is double the price." About 1,000,000 tons of insoluble phosphatic manures are now used in the United Kingdom yearly, of which 50,000 tons are used in the north of Scotland, where there has been a saving of £50,000 annually. Therefore, in respect of the 1,000,000 tons of these manures now used in the United Kingdom yearly there is a saving to farmers of £1,000,000 annually. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a most important result to have secured.
Another result secured—and it was this that led to the grant being dropped in the year 1900—was the discovery that natural (or self) cross-fertilisation takes place in the gramineœ family, which includes the cereals and the grasses. The reason for withdrawing the grant in 1900 was a mistaken report of the Board's expert. What the association claimed in the last-mentioned discovery was that two kinds of oats sown together crossed, and that the crossed seed could next year be sown and yield larger produce. The expert thought the association alluded to the well-known practice of mixing wheat with oats and grass in order to provide green food for cattle, which is a very different thing; and when this was pointed out Mr. Hanbury, who was then the Minister, reconsidered his decision and continued the grant. Another

1125
result well known to your Lordships was the "primary cause of finger and toe in turnips and the means for its prevention."
Now I come to the last and latest work to which I am going to allude, and that is the discovery that nitrogen of air is directly absorbed and fixed by plants—largely by many plants, in smaller degree by other plants such as cereals and grasses. This is a subject of the greatest importance, and already a tremendous storm of opposition and inquiry has been raised. But from all I hear there are in this country an increasing number coming round to the views of the association in regard to this point. There is an old proverb to the effect that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country, and I have in my hand a great number of appreciations and criticisms from different parts of the world of the work done by this association. There is an appreciation from America. In France the work of the association has been appreciated to such an extent that there was published in the Annales de la Science A gronomique, under the auspices of the Minister of Agriculture, two of the reports of the association in extenso. The work of the association has been recognised also by Professor Grandeau, Director of Experimental Stations in France; by Professor Franck, of Berlin; and by Professor Roerdan, of Denmark; while in Holland the pamphlets have been translated in the Flemish language, and in Brazil the Government Department of Agriculture have issued publications on the subject. And last, but not least, there is the confirmation of two scientists, professors in Government experimental stations in Hungary, who have tested the investigations of the association and who say—
Our researches—we mention it in every place of our essay—are based on your pioneer explorations and our results justify your theory.
I will not trouble your Lordships further on this point, but I think that what I have said shows the great appreciation in which the work that has been done by this association is regarded in all parts of the globe.
I confess that I do not know why this grant was refused, but I understand that the only reason given was that the Board did not approve of our investigations. I understand that an interview was had with Earl Carrington, who, I think, recalled that expression and said that the grant
1126
would only be given "if the results accorded with the opinion of the expert." The grant is not now given, and, therefore, I presume the results do not accord with the opinion of the expert. I do not know who the expert is or on what he bases his opinion. I have not the slightest doubt that he may be an excellent expert in educational and in experimental agricultural matters, but I am told that he is not recognised as an authority on agricultural research. It is quite clear that the Board have advanced money for many years to aid in this research, and I do not understand how they can now argue that this aid is dependent on the results harmonising with the opinion of the expert when the results can only be obtained after the outlay has been made. The sum is only a small one and the work that has been accomplished is very important. I would, therefore, ask the noble Earl to reconsider his decision. The noble Earl the other day appealed to your Lordships to give him "his little Bill." I would earnestly ask him to give me my little grant.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYMy Lords, as I have been president of this association since it was started thirty-three years ago, I desire to support my noble friend in the action he has taken and to make an appeal to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture that in this matter he should reconsider his decision. I say unhesitatingly that I regard the noble Earl's action as a most retrograde step. This association is, I believe I am right in saying, the only research association in the British Isles which devotes itself solely to original investigation, and it appears to be held by the Board of Agriculture that because one of its experiments is disputed therefore it is to be condemned. I do not intend to go through the list of the good work that the association has done, but there is hardly anyone connected with agriculture who does not know the great results obtained by this body.
The business, of course, of a research association is not always to go on hard and fast facts. It pursues its investigations, it publishes results, it invites criticism, and it is by that means that the truth is arrived at. The grants given for agriculture in this country are given to colleges and educational establishments, but where would these institutions be if it had not been for the research of the past? It is

1127
through the original investigation that has been conducted that you are able to arrive at the truth and at facts which you can afterwards teach to the rising generation of agriculturists. But here you have the disgracefully small grant of £100 a year to this association stopped because one of the experts of the Board of Agriculture disagrees with the chemist who is directing these research experiments. That was the explanation given, and it has not been withdrawn.
Compare what has been done in this country with what is being done on the Continent. Every other country in Europe is studded with State-aided institutions. In France, Germany, Denmark, and every other country the institutions are supported out of the funds of the State—not only institutions for research and original investigations, but also qualified officials for checking the results that are obtained by these institutions. Then these are tabulated and transmitted to the educational establishments for their benefit. I presume that the policy of the President of the Board of Agriculture is not to stifle all research work in this country. But the Universities have not time for research work. I would call attention to the extraordinary interest that is being taken on the Continent in the latest discovery of this association—namely, the utilisation of nitrogen by plants from the air. Mr. Jamieson was the first person to demonstrate how much nitrogen plants have the power of absorbing from the air. This discovery led to a storm of criticism and comment; but what has been the result of the investigations of one of the greatest institutions in Hungary? The professor at the Royal Hungarian High School of Forestry and also the professor at the Royal Hungarian Central Experimental Station of Forestry wrote—
Our researches—we mention it in every place of our essay—are based on your pioneer explorations; our results justify your theory.
That is a Report from the Government Department in Hungary addressed to our association confirming and acknowledging the great results attained. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who, we know, has the interests of agriculture at heart, will not seek to stifle our work by withholding such a small grant as £100.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)My Lords, I regret it, but I am afraid I am unable to meet the wishes of the two noble Lords who have so eloquently pleaded the cause of the institution in which they take so great an interest. I have been a great nuisance to my colleagues in the Government in advocating the cause of agriculture and in asking for money, and I am bound to say that they have been very generous. I have been more successful than I had any reason to anticipate; but, having obtained promises of money, it behoves, me to be extremely careful how that money is spent. I should be blamed, and rightly so, if any expenditure of public money was made to an institution which it was afterwards rather difficult to justify.
The institution referred to is the Agricultural Research Association. The noble Lord has described its inception and the grants that were made to it up to last year, when the grant was discontinued. Looking at the financial statement for the year ended December 31, 1908, I find that, although only one-half of the "direction"—I speak under correction, but I suppose "direction" is Gaelic for "salary"—although only-one-half of the salary, namely, £100, was paid, yet there is a deficit of £260. That, of course, is to me as an agriculturist a matter of great regret, and all the more so as the noble Lord told us that the farmers are deeply interested in this agricultural research work. The noble Lord also stated that the association was entirely different in its aims from the agricultural colleges because the latter did not undertake research work. I am unable to follow the noble Lord there. The agricultural colleges do undertake research, and with very beneficial results.
That this association did very good work in days gone by I entirely admit, and it was supported and received a grant in consequence; but at the present moment I am afraid I am unable to recommend the continuance of the grant for the reason which I shall state to your Lordships. I do not know what his official title is, but the chemist of this association, as has been said, has theories. I had an interview on July 4, 1907, with Mr. Jamieson, who has been rightly described as a genius. He was kind enough to spend an hour and a half with me, and he explained at very considerable length the absorption

1129
of nitrogen by the hairs of plants. Though a number of qualitative tests show that albumen is present in the hairs of certain plants, there is no proof whatever that the nitrogen comes from the air outside. On the contrary, it comes in the ordinary way through the root of the plant.
The noble Lord who called attention to this matter to-day said that an increasing number of people were coming round to the view of this association, and he quoted the report of two Hungarians confirming and acknowledging what had been done. I have here the Report of these Hungarians. It is perfectly true that in their Report these two scientific gentlemen say—
Our investigations and studies support, for the most part, the opinions of Mr. Jamieson in according to these hairs of specialised form a physiological significance of great importance."
They add—
We are persuaded that Jamieson's theory will prevail, for evidently it is these hairs and club-hairs that produce the albumen of plants, and it is these organs that enable the plants to profit from the immense quantity of nitrogen in the air.
It is perfectly true that they believe in it themselves, but they submit no proof whatever that this theory is correct.
Naturally I had to take the opinion of people who know a great deal more about these scientific matters than I do myself. Mr. Baillie Balfour, Professor of Botany at Edinburgh, said, in a lecture on March 16 two years ago, that—
Not a semblance of proof of the fixation of nitrogen was advanced by Mr. Jamieson.
He went on to say—
Mr. Jamieson's discovery was not a discovery at all.
What is the opinion of Professor Middleton, who was professor of Agriculture at Cambridge and whose valuable services I have been fortunate enough to secure at the Board of Agriculture? He advised that—
Mr. Jamieson's work was of an unsatisfactory character.
Then I come to the opinion of Mr. A. D. Hall, Professor of Botany at Rothamsted. Mr. Hall on March 31, 1906, said—
The speculations of Mr. Jamieson on the subject of the fixation of nitrogen are not accepted by any scientific man with whom I am acquainted;
1130
and Mr. Trail, Professor of Botany at Aberdeen, on February 27, 1907, after a most careful and unbiased examination of the evidence, declared that—
Mr. Jamieson has failed to prove his case, and he has so completely misunderstood the structures examined by him as to make impossible a true interpretation of their functions.
The action of the Board, or rather my action, for I take the whole blame of it if there is any blame, has been described by Mr. Jamieson in a speech delivered to his supporters as "ridiculous." But I will ask the noble Lord one question. In the face of the decided opinions of these learned and scientific gentlemen, would he himself have increased the grant? I quite acknowledge the good work that has been done in the past, and I go further and say that should Mr. Jamieson be fortunate enough to make any fresh discoveries or be able to produce any further evidence as to the value of his agricultural work, it will, of course, be most carefully considered; but on the evidence at present available I do honestly think, in the interests of my Department, that it is impossible to sanction a grant from the public funds at my disposal. I very much regret that I am, therefore, unable to meet the wishes of the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I confess that most of us have listened to the noble Earl's answer with feelings of considerable surprise. Here is an institution engaged upon very interesting agricultural research work—a subject in which in this country we are vitally interested. The association apparently enjoys a reputation not confined to the United Kingdom but world wide, and testimonials to their good work have been received from many European countries and some from America. In the face of a position of that kind we find that the Government have suddenly deprived this association of its grant. The noble Earl took to himself great credit in his efforts in the direction of economy. What economy has he effected by the withdrawal of this grant? He has saved the taxpayers of this country the stupendous sum of £100 a year! And the noble Earl effects an economy of £100 at a time when one of his colleagues, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is taking untold sums for a development grant to make experiments of this kind. Could anything be more amazing than that an association which

1131
apparently does first-rate work should be deprived of this paltry sum by a Government who believe in a development grant?
Let us look for a moment at the noble Earl's reasons. It appears that his reasons turn entirely upon the qualifications of the particular scientific gentleman who advises this association. He is admitted to be a genius. The noble Earl himself says he is a genius. That is something in these days of mediocrity. Well, what has he done wrong that the association should be deprived of this £100? Apparently all his theories have not been proved. Are we never to give money for investigation to associations unless they can immediately prove all their theories? That is verdict first and trial afterwards. I confess I never heard a reason so ill-founded as that for depriving an association of a grant. But there is this one great subject of dispute—a question that I am afraid I am not qualified to deal with—as to the fixation of nitrogen. That is not the only theory of the association. The other great discoveries made by the association are admitted. Yet because in one particular case the theory has not been proved their work in every other direction is, so far as the Government are concerned, to be put an end to. Lastly, the case of the association does not and cannot rest on the reputation of one gentleman. The noble Earl seems to me to have failed lamentably to prove anything against the association itself, and in these days when agricultural science is so important I would respectfully ask the Government—this economical Government—to be considerate and see whether they cannot find it in their heart to provide this £100.
LORD HENEAGEI should like to ask whether it is not the fact that the expert opinions quoted by the noble Earl were given some four years ago, and that during the last three years, while the theory has been in course of being perfected, not one single word has been said by any of these experts against it?
VISCOUNT RIDLEYMy Lords, this seems to me to be purely Departmental interference with scientific investigations, which I should have thought the noble Earl would have been the last person to have encouraged. The Board of Agriculture is surely, under his rule, interested
1132
in developing investigations into every branch of science connected with agriculture, and agriculturists had reason to hope that, whatever might be the economic opinion of the new development grant which was to absorb the old Sinking Fund, at any rate some of it might be devoted to purposes that would assist the cultivators of the land. But the noble Earl at this juncture, when his pockets are going to be filled with the stream from the old Sinking Fund even refuses money to an existing institution which has been in receipt of a Government grant even under the old system when those grants were less liberally given. I hope the noble Earl will reconsider the position and see whether he cannot give this paltry sum out of the large funds at his disposal.
EARL CARRINGTONWhat I could do if I had more money is a different question. I have only a certain amount at the present time, and that ought to be expended to the best possible public advantage. There are other societies and colleges that have a prior claim as doing more practical work.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI would like to ask whether this is the sort of purpose to which the money to be derived from the old Sinking Fund might be devoted?
EARL CARRINGTONThis is not the only society engaged in research work. All the agricultural colleges are pursuing exactly the same work, and, in my humble opinion, doing it a peat deal better.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYThat was not the question I asked. Is the noble Earl in a position to say if work of this kind will come within the purposes of the development grant? If so, he might be in a position in another year to comply with the request of my noble friend for a grant for this particular institution.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)We will answer the noble Viscount's question when we have got the new fund.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment at the answer I have received from the noble Earl. No notice was given that the grant was to be withdrawn, and the

1133
result of its withdrawal has been to land the association heavily in debt. As this debt will have to be met, the future work of the association will be seriously crippled. I earnestly hope the noble Earl will, out of kindness of heart, reconsider his decision in this matter.

THE ARMY.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEMy Lords, I rise to move for a Return showing the total (a) combatant (b) non-combatant establishment of the Expeditionary Force; the number of officers and men of the Regular Army at present available included in this force; the number of officers and men who will be drawn from the Special Reserve (a) combatant (b) non-combatant; the number of men, if any, who will be sent abroad under twenty years of age; the number of officers and men over twenty years of age at present on the strength of the Regular Army who will remain in this country to replace the wastage of war after the Expeditionary Force has left (a) combatant (b) non-combatant; the force which could be mobilised at home of men of not less than one year's service after the Expeditionary Force has been despatched, dividing (a) Regulars from (b) Special Reserve, as the existing strength of these forces.
I trust the noble Lord who represents the War Office will understand that, in moving for this Return, I do not wish him to publish any information the disclosing of which may be detrimental to the national interest; but as he stated the other day that a good deal of this information could be derived from official publications, I think we are fully justified in asking the noble Lord to lay this Return on the Table. No one, I think, can fail to appreciate the fact, stated by the noble Lord during the course of the military debate last week, that until the scheme of the Secretary of State had had time to mature there were bound to be certain gaps. I am glad to think that the noble Lord now admits the truth of our contention that there are serious gaps, especially amongst officers. The question is, how soon do the Government anticipate that those gaps are likely to be filled up? Nearly three years have elapsed since the Secretary of State for War said in the House of Commons—
As the result of the Government's proposals we shall be in a position to readily mobilise 150,000 officers and men. Of this total, 50,000
1134
will be regulars serving with the Colours, about 70,000 wi11 be Reservists, and about 30,000 men employed and trained on a Militia basis.
The right hon. gentleman went on to state that:—
An Army so organised would be, in point of numbers, available for taking the field over seas nearly fifty per cent. stronger than any Expeditionary Force which we have ever hitherto attempted to organise in this country.
A War Office Return subsequently issued showed an even more encouraging statement—namely, 159,620 officers and men. After the very clear statement made during the course of the debate last week by the Duke of Bedford, which was fully endorsed by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, it is difficult for any of us to imagine that that number is ever likely to be forthcoming. I say this for this reason, that neither the noble Lord nor any member on the Government side attempted to discredit or seriously to dispute the many hard facts and proofs produced by my noble friend the Duke of Bedford. In fact, if I may say so, they evaded all these points in every detail, and adopted the somewhat extraordinary attitude of appealing to us on this side as to what alternative scheme we had to suggest for this purpose.
Because the noble Duke, myself, and others have thought fit to criticise the military policy of His Majesty's Government, I fail to understand—I say it with all respect—why the noble Earl the Leader of the House should think that we have imparted unusual animus into our criticisms or that we have been actuated by any party motives. I can assure him that the criticisms we have made have been made purely for the good of the service, and more especially that particular branch of the service to which many of us belong. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary told the House last week that he did not see that any good could accrue from having a special inquiry into the state of the Special Reserve, but that if such a Commission should sit, which he did not anticipate, the result of their deliberations would, he believed, be to ask for the heads of the Ministers in the late Government. I can assure him, whether he thinks that or not, that in asking him for this Return I am not in any way actuated by motives of that kind with respect to himself. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be more responsive than he has been on two former occasions, and will not be content to

1135
shelter himself behind the well-known official statement that it is contrary to precedent to give the information.
Moved, That an humble, Address be presented to His Majesty for a return of—

1. The total (a) combatant (b) noncombatant establishment of the Expeditionary Force; the number of officers and men of the Regular Army at present available included in this force;

2. The number of officers and men who will be drawn from the Special Reserve (a) combatant (b) non-combatant;

3. The number of men, if any, who will be sent abroad under 20 years of age;

4. The number of officers and men over twenty years of age at present on the strength of the Regular Army who will remain in this country to replace the wastage of war after the Expeditionary Force has left (a) combatant (b) non-combatant;

5. The force which could be mobilised at home of men of not less than one year's service after the Expeditionary Force has been despatched, dividing (a) Regulars from (b) Special Reserve, as the existing strength of these Forces.—(Viscount Hardinge.)

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS)My Lords, I should like to express our gratitude to the noble Viscount for his statement that he does not desire anything which it is contrary to the public interest should be published. I can assure him that in all our answers to him we will bear that carefully in mind, and that nothing that is in the least likely to be prejudicial shall be made public. For that reason I am afraid I am unable to give any other answers to these Questions than I have already given on two occasions. But shortly after Whitsuntide we propose to lay Papers on the Table of your Lordships' House showing the full effect of the reforms that we have up to now carried out in the Army. I think there is some need for that, because the debate of last week showed pretty clearly that the result of those reforms is not so well understood as it might be. The Papers that we shall present will show all that can legitimately be made public in the way of elucidating the points upon which the noble Viscount asks for information, and anything beyond what will be contained in the Papers the noble Viscount can only, I am afraid, get by
1136
coming to the War Office as I have proposed to him on previous occasions. That is all I have to say on the Motion of the noble Viscount. But there is another Question on the Paper standing in the name of Lord Lovat. I would like to say, with regard to that Question, that it deals entirely with our mobilisation arrangements. It amounts to asking for our mobilisation plans in detail, and therefore——
LORD LOVATThe noble Lord is proceeding to answer a Question which I have on the Paper, but which I have not yet asked. I should like to inquire if the noble Lord is in order in answering a Question which has not been put.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREMy Lords, we may congratulate my noble friend behind me who has moved this Motion that, directly, I think, as the result of his perseverance, we are going to get something out of the Government after Whitsuntide. I think it is a pity that we were not told that when my noble friend asked these Questions the first time. I suppose most of us will be ready to possess ourselves in patience and see what we are going to get from the promised Papers. But I would draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the late Government gave certain particulars to this House which, as regards matters at that time, gave a good deal of the information that my noble friend desires to obtain as regards matters at the present moment. Mr. Arnold-Forster, when he made certain proposals regarding the reorganisation of the Army in 1904, gave a statement showing the composition of a battalion on mobilisation, the number under and over twenty years of age, the number of Reservists required to complete war establishment, and the number in excess. That only gave the figure for one battalion, but obviously a small sum in multiplication would give it for the whole Army. I ask specifically that a similar return should be included among the Papers we are to see. The Secretary of State for War is going round the country almost conducting an election campaign in his own favour, and it is right that we should know the facts about the optimistic statements he is making.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEI am content to withdraw my Motion and to wait and see what the Return we are promised divulges.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LOVATMy Lords, in asking the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War the Question standing in my name the Paper—namely, what is the total number of combatants of all ranks in organised units available for the Central Home Defence Force after the Expeditionary Force and the garrisons of naval bases and defence areas have been deducted—I intend to adopt a rather different method of procedure. I have asked this Question on more than one occasion already and have not had a satisfactory answer. I Propose on this occasion to answer it myself.
It has been clearly stated by Mr. Haldane that the military forces of this country are divided into the Expeditionary Force and the Home Defence Force, and that the Home Defence Force is divided into two definite parts—those troops that are allocated for fixed defences and those which Mr. Haldane has stated are to form the Central Home Defence Force. Now with regard to the Expeditionary Force, we have, I think, passed out of debatable ground. It has been admitted that the Expeditionary Force will consist of 165,000 men, and Mr. Balfour laid down in 1905 that for this force would be required six divisions in certain cases for the defence of India. The Secretary of State for War has more than once stated the number of men required for the Expeditionary Force, and our friends across the water have laid it down in their military reviews that if the entente cordiale is to be worth anything at all we must have a force capable of going over to that side. Every military writer in the French Press says that if there is to be any real understanding there must be a possibility in England of six divisions, or some large number, and a Cavalry division being able, in certain circumstances, to cross the sea. Our Colonies have in no less certain terms declared that the central police force of the Empire must have a real power of mobility to go oversea. Therefore I think I may say that we are agreed that the Expeditionary Force should number something approaching six Infantry divisions and one Cavalry division —167,000 men in all.
As to the question of fixed defences, we are also well in agreement. The number was defined by Mr. Balfour as 142,000 men, plus Garrison Artillery. The figure of 168,000 has been repeatedly used throughout the country by our leading military
1138
writers as the number to defend our ports, naval arsenals, and other posts which must be held from the purely naval point of view. I am not going to say that 168,000 is the figure to-day, but I say it is not less than that number, because the limited raid theory which held the field until a year ago was definitely abandoned by Lord Crewe in November last; and, in addition, we know that in a few years time the number of ships which a certain Power will have will upset the present proportion.
THE EARL OF CREWEI do not desire to interrupt the noble Lord, but I rather object to being quoted in that way. I wish the noble Lord would quote my words.
LORD LOVATI am afraid I have not the noble Earl's words, but I shall be happy to read what Mr. Haldane said, and he went further than the noble Earl. After all, the force required for the defence of our naval ports is dependent on the number of men who can be brought against us. The Secretary of State for War said on March 8 last in the House of Commons—
I have never said that invasion of these islands was impossible, but there is great ambiguity about what is meant by an invasion. A small raid might take place or an invasion upon a considerably larger scale might well be possible. What you have to consider is what is the size of the invading force which the Navy can make sure of intercepting? That is a problem you cannot answer with exactitude, but investigation and consideration make it pretty plain that a force somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 is the force you must guard against by keeping your home defence army sufficiently strong to prevent the enemy coming in larger numbers than the Navy can deal with with something like certainty.
Therefore it is now admitted that invasion by a force of between 70,000 and 100,000 is possible. That brings me back to my point—namely, that as the number of possible invaders is greater the number of the fixed defence force cannot be less. The noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, pointed out clearly the other day that a portion of the defenders of fixed places—the Special Reserve—were not better for their work than the troops they had succeeded. Consequently the number of men required may be considerably more than 168,000.
From there we go to the question of the Central Home Defence Force, and here there is agreement. May I for a moment show exactly how the train of thought on this

1139
particular subject has altered in the last few years? In 1905 we had the limited raid theory—that is to say, a raid by a force of from 5,000 to 10,000; and therefore we had no Central Home Defence Force except the defence force by commands. In 1907 Lord Roberts instituted an inquiry into this matter and brought certain evidence before the Defence Committee, and in 1908 a mobilisation plan was begun for a Central Home Defence Force. In March of this year the Secretary of State made the statement which I have read to the House—that we had to make preparations for a possible invasion by between 70,000 and 100,000 men. This great Central Defence Force then became a thing of vital necessity to the defence of this country. How many men have we to fill these three rôles—the Expeditionary Force, the garrisons of naval bases and defence areas, and the Central Home Defence Force. We require for our Expeditionary Force over seas, as Lord Lucas said, the whole of the men over twenty and the Reservists.
LORD LUCASI never said the whole of the men over twenty.
LORD LOVATThen I will take back that statement. There are so very few over twenty that it really does not matter. The noble Lord stated that in order to mobilise the home battalions you would require the whole of the Reserves, with a negligible quantity over of a few thousand. That being so, we have, for the mobolisation of the 160,000 men, the whole of the Reserve used up with the exception of these few thousand, all the men over twenty with a few exceptions, and also—this was mentioned in the noble Lord's statement the other day—in order to complete the mobilisation of the ammunition columns and the Army Service Corps, a certain number of men, not specified, from the Special Reserve. On the Expeditionary Force quitting these shores we should be left with a certain number of half-trained Regular soldiers, of whom 30,000 might be recruits under one year's service, a proportion of the Special Reserve, and a negligible quantity of really trained Reserves.
I know it is very often argued that a certain portion of our Expeditionary Force might be left at home in the event of an expedition overseas; but I am unable to follow this argument. I am told by those who have been responsible for making some
1140
of our plans for oversea campaigns that it would be inconceivable, if four divisions went abroad and received a reverse, that the other two divisions should not immediately follow; and, in case the four divisions had a success, it is impossible to think that the other two divisions would be refused to the General in command, who would naturally wish to extend the lines of communication and the results of victory. There is no doubt that plans will be made by the General Staff to have the whole of the men who are earmarked the Expeditionary Force ready to be sent abroad if required, and it is no use for Ministers to tell us that only four divisions will be sent out of the country.
The value of the curiously mixed mass of men to whom I referred a moment ago and who would be left over I put down as not more than 70,000 fighting men. They will have no junior officers, and the men, according to the Duke of Bedford, will not be as efficient as the old Militia. They will be jammed together in cadres of which they have no knowledge; they will be serving, many of them, in works of which they have no previous knowledge, and I think if there is one thing which the South African war proved to the hilt it was that mixed details who do not know their officers are not more than a third the value of other troops. As I say, I put down the total value of these men as not more than 70,000 fighting men. That means that we must have another 100,000 men to fill the fixed defences. Where are these to be obtained? They will obviously have to be found from the Territorial Army. To-day the Territorial Army is 260,000 strong. In the near future we may have 313,000 in that force, but this will not mean 313,000 men capable of taking the field. A large number of them will never have shot their musketry course, and it would not be possible to take them out against trained Continental soldiers over twenty years of age and of two years service.
There is also the point that the whole of our ammunition column and other subsidiary corps are not even armed with a rifle. You must, therefore, make an allowance of 250 per 1,000—in other words, you must deduct one-fourth before beginning to count the fighting strength. I think from 200,000 to 220,000 men would be the outside number of really efficient men. That gives you 100,000 for the fixed de-

1141
fences and 120,000 to take into the field as the great Central Defence Force. These men might have to face 100,000 trained conscripts. Are you, therefore, not asking the Territorial Army to carry out work which they are incapable of doing? I think one has a right, as a Territorial officer, to put this question. I do not think it is fair to ask troops to do work which they certainly could not do. Therefore I make this protest. I have been driven to bring up this question by the Secretary of State going about the country making absurdly optimistic speeches about the state of our defences.
The statement of the number of men available for the defence of the country is greatly exaggerated, because the ammunition corps and the Army Service Corps are not only not trained to the use of the rifle, but do not possess rifles; whereas it is laid down in the latest German regulations that the men in these branches are to be thoroughly trained in their arms in every particular and made efficient as soldiers, as upon them will largely devolve the duties of adequately protecting convoys. I take another point. Lord Roberts stated, in your Lordships' House, that the Central Defence Force would not exceed 40,000 men, and the Secretary of state, referring to that statement, said—
Lord Roberts, in the House of Lords, thought 200,000 men would be locked up in the defence of ports, and only 40,000 would be available. That was really absurd, because the men relegated for port defence, if their number were 200,000, would still be available to draw upon.
We could not afford the destruction of one single Dreadnought slip anywhere. How is it possible, therefore, to draw upon the men who are responsible for these local defences? How could they be taken sway and sent to the South of Scotland, it may be, to join the great Central Defence Force? The statement is not less than absurd. I feel that this matter is one which it is very necessary for us to consider at the present time. There are many here who wish for the continuance of the voluntary system and who wish to get the full amount out of the magnificent work Mr. Haldane has done in organising our forces but who are driven into the other camp because Mr. Haldane claims at the same time to have provided the men and the training. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD LUCASMy Lords, the noble Lord has asked a Question which he knew perfectly well at the time he put it down was one which it was impossible for the Government to answer. The Question goes to the very heart of the whole of our mobilisation arrangements, and would be impossible to answer without practically explaining in detail what those arrangements are. Therefore, the noble Lord knew the answer would be a definite refusal to give any information on the subject. Nor am I going to follow Lord Lovat into the fantastic figures which he has given to-night. I cannot see what good raising this question and making speeches of this kind can possibly do. These figures, which the Government are debarred from answering, and debarred from correcting where they are wrong, as they are in most cases, can only create a false impression upon the minds of people who read these debates in the newspapers. If such a false impression has been created, it has been created by noble Lords opposite, and it is beyond the power of the Government to correct it, for we do not intend to give the information.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI think it right to point out that the Under-Secretary has used extremely strong language, and has applied the word "fantastic" to the figures given by Lord Lovat.
LORD LUCASHear, hear.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORELet us accept that word, for the figures were all taken out of the speeches of the Government.

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884—Was presented by The Lord Nunburnholme; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday the 23rd of June next. (No. 62.)

MILK AND DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to ensure the purity of milk supplies, and to regulate dairies in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith —Was presented by The Lord Pentland; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 63.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.