Lords Sitting of 14 July 1910

Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No.3).
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No.5).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No.1).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No.2).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No.3).
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.
London County Council (Money).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW GAS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.1) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
WEMYSS TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons.

EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AND DUFFIELD NAVIGATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Milnrow Urban District Council Tramways Order was withdrawn: The Orders made on Wednesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No.3) BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Rowley Regis and Blackheath Gas Order was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 22nd of June and Wednesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL. (No.81.)
Read 1a, and to be printed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.1) BILL. (No. 82.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.2) BILL. (No.83.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.3) BILL. (No.84.)
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No.85.)
Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

WEMYSS TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee. (No.86.)
SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Petition against; of the Parish Council of the Parish of Cathcart; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
WATER SUPPLIES (PROTECTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Petition against; of the Corporation of Paddington; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EDUCATION (PHYSICAL TRAINING) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for physical training in Elementary, Secondary, and Continuation Schools—Was presented by the Viscount Hill; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a, on Thursday the 14 th instant (No. 87.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No.6) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No.2) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (No.2) BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, it will not, I think, be necessary to occupy much of your Lordships' time over this little Bill, which your Lordships will see at once is as simple as it is necessary. It deals with and seeks to make less hideous the traffic in decrepit horses. The Board of Agriculture classifies these horses under two heads—as of £5 and under, and as of £10 and under—and the tables show that while Belgium and Holland import from this country some 40,000 between them, by far the greater number of the ten-pounders go to Belgium while by far the greater number of the five-pounders go to Holland. This at once stamps the traffic with Belgium as being far more vicious than that with Holland, because whereas the five-pounders—in fact, all those which go to Holland—are used entirely for food and are under police supervision from the moment of arrival until they are slaughtered, those which are landed at Antwerp are walked four miles to the Government stables to be examined
1046
for glanders and other diseases, and then either the last ounce of work is dragged out of the poor brutes in country labour, or they are consigned to the butcher, which often entails a further march of suffering.
This Bill seeks to ensure the compulsory examination by a veterinary surgeon appointed by the Board of Agriculture for that purpose of every single horse on arrival at the dock, and to forbid the captain or master of any vessel accepting any horse for exportation unless a certificate from the veterinary surgeon is produced to the effect that the animal is capable of being conveyed to its destination without suffering, not only during the intended voyage but after being disembarked. In 1898, as a result of a deputation from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Exportation of Horses Order was issued, by the Board of Agriculture, and so far as it affects the horses when once on board ship, it has greatly tended to improve their condition. But the contention of the promoters of this. Bill—and I hope to amply prove it to your Lordships—is that unfit horses are actually shipped, and that the Order which says it shall not be lawful to convey in a vessel from any port in Great Britain any horse which, owing to age, infirmity, illness, injury, or any other reason, cannot be so conveyed without cruelty during the intended passage and on landing, is a dead letter.
In proof of this, I would draw attention, first, to the fact that since 1902 the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has obtained 700 convictions against persons for travelling lame and decrepit horses on the road to the docks for shipment abroad, and I would suggest that these simple folk—the horse dealers—would not incur the trouble and expense of driving those horses from long distances to the port of exportation if they did not think there was a good chance of getting them on board. And, secondly, I would draw attention to the evidence of Mr. Smart, M.R.C.V.S., Superintending Veterinary Inspector of the Board of Agriculture, which he gave at the monthly meeting of the Veterinary Society on April 7 last. With your Lordships' permission I will read it. Mr. Smart said—
"It had occurred to him that the society might like some clear indication from a veterinary

1047
surgeon who was somewhat intimately acquainted with the traffic as to the conditions under which it had been carried out, and was now carried out….In February, 1909, he received instructions from the Assistant Secretary of the Board to visit all the ports to see exactly what the local authorities were doing as to administering the Exportation of Horses Order of 1898, and to report to the Board. The Exportation of Horses Order, 1898, provided for the proper treatment of horses en route, and left the duty of carrying out the provisions to the various local authorities. When that Order was first passed, it was assumed by the Board that the local authorities would place the inspection of the horses in the hands of veterinary surgeons, presumably their local inspectors. When he went to the various ports he found there was no uniformity in the way in which the order was being administered. At a few ports the veterinary inspector of the local authority was inspecting horses before shipment; at some of the other ports they were inspected on behalf of the shipping companies by a veterinary surgeon in the employment of the company; in other cases there was a comic opera sort of arrangement, by which the veterinary surgeon was paid a fee for inspecting the horses he passed fit for shipment but was not paid any fee for the horses he rejected as unfit for shipment; and at some other ports a perfunctory inspection was made by the police."
So far then, my Lords, we have dealt with the decrepit horse on this side of the water, and attempted to make certain that it shall not leave this country in a state of suffering. A further clause in the Bill provides that every ship engaged in this traffic shall carry a proper and humane killing instrument, and gives the master of the ship power to order its use to end the sufferings of any of his equine passengers without making himself pecuniarily liable. Again I will quote the evidence of Mr. Smart before the Veterinary Society. He said—
"The Board had received reports from time to time from their lay inspectors, who for several years past had occasionally made voyages on the ships with the object of seeing that the fittings of the ship were in order and that the animals were properly fed and watered on the voyage. These inspectors were allotted certain stations, where they remained for some years, and it was quite likely they became known to the persons engaged in the trade, and that during the particular voyage they were on board the horses were better attended to than at other times."
This is borne out by the evidence of the secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who with a Daily Mail correspondent travelled on one of these ships to Antwerp last February, and reported as follows:—
"No food or water was, so I was informed, to be given to the old horses unless desired. I took care to inquire on arrival if such a wish had been expressed by the dealers, and was told that
1048
none of these poor old animals had been either fed or watered on the passage."
Bearing those words in mind your Lordships will, perhaps, not be surprised to hear the following facts: 16,373 horses were exported to Antwerp between January, 1909, and January, 1910. Of these, 317 had to be removed on arrival in wagons; nine had to be killed at once; and forty-one arrived dead. When I remember a voyage which I made with the King's Dragoon Guards in 1879, taking many weeks, and that at the end of it the King's Dragoon Guards and 17th Lancers landed their horses practically intact at Durban and shortly after marched up country, I can only come to the conclusion that such casualties as I have read to your Lordships in the little voyage to Antwerp must mean that a large percentage of those horses would never have been shipped had they been subjected to a proper veterinary examination, and that, if shipped, many would have been destroyed on the voyage to avoid suffering but for the Belgian law of 1895, which loses to the consignor the value of an animal killed en route.
Once more I must draw on Mr. Smart. He said—
"The Board also received information that horses not in a fit condition to endure the voyage were shipped from time to time, and some rather disquieting information as to the treatment of horses on the other side was also brought to the notice of the Board."
Disquieting information, indeed, my Lords, because the Secretary of the Society who, with the Daily Mail correspondent, went to Antwerp, reports as follows—
"We saw horses with such deformities and diseases that it was gross cruelty to have allowed them to undergo the sufferings entailed by the journey—horses which were so lame that on arrival they could hardly hobble along the dock side, and had to be conveyed to the Government stables in wagons, or were so weak that they had to be sandwiched between two less decrepit animals so that they might receive their support during the painful walk of four and a-half miles to the Government stables."
Your Lordships may say, with so much cruelty on foot, Why are these horses not either killed before embarkation or the traffic stopped altogether? The first of those is not possible, because Belgium and Holland do not allow dead meat across their borders; and the second is an unattainable ideal, not practicable because a large amount of money is involved in this trade and the supply in this country

1049
meets the demand of Holland and Belgium. Therefore I feel that we must be content with the provisions of this little Bill. It has come from another place practically with unanimous approval, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I do not think there are any of your Lordships who will not be in general agreement with the principle of this Bill. Certainly I am myself, and nothing that I shall say and no Amendment that I shall move can be taken as being against the principle as a whole. But it seems to me that the Bill is too general in its application. We admit at once that there are abuses, but this seems like employing a steam hammer to crack a nut. In trying to stop admitted abuses you are going to interfere with the legitimate horse trade of the United Kingdom. We want to stop the abuses of which the noble Lord has spoken, but I think he will agree that we should do nothing to stop the legitimate horse traffic between this country and the Continent. Naturally I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but there are one or two Amendments which I shall move in Committee, and which I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept.
I will take, in the first place, Clause 1, in which appear the words—
"Except in such cases as may be prescribed by Order of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."
Great as is my admiration for that Board and its President, I would infinitely prefer to have the powers which the Board are to exercise more clearly defined in the Bill. We then come to the words—
"From any port in Great Britain to any place outside Great Britain."
I do not think the noble Lord would wish that the restrictions which he rightly desires to impose in the case of the traffic between England and Holland and Belgium should be imposed in the same way in the case of the trade between England and Ireland. The two are on different footings, and restrictions which would rightly apply to the one ought not to apply to the other. I shall, therefore, when the Bill reaches Committee, move to leave out the words "Great Britain" and to insert "British Isles." Next there is the word "immediately" ["unless immediately before shipment
1050
the horse has been examined by a veterinary surgeon appointed by the Board"]. This seems to me far too indefinite, and I should like to propose, when the time comes, that instead of the word "immediately" there should be substituted the words "within forty-eight hours." Clause 2 I confess I do not understand at all, but we shall probably get some information upon it in Committee. When we come to Clause 3, there is a much more serious restriction on the exportation and importation of horses. In the first place, I should propose to leave out the words "during the voyage" and to substitute the words "while on board," because it might be very difficult to prove that a horse was injured during the voyage, whereas it would be perfectly easy to prove that it was injured "while on board."
But the biggest controversy I have with this Bill is that every class of horse is included. I propose, by a new clause which I will place on the Paper, to exclude that class of horse with which, perhaps, I am more intimately concerned than with any other—the racehorse. The rule that applies in the case of a decrepit horse ought not to apply in the case of a racehorse. Let me give your Lordships one instance. It would be prefectly easy for a racehorse or brood mare going abroad to split a pastern on board. The master of the vessel has no veterinary knowledge, but he sees that the animal is quite lame and has apparently broken a limb. Under this Bill he could destroy that animal at once, without any compensation to the owner. An animal which had split a pastern, although not so valuable for racing purposes, is quite as valuable for breeding purposes. Therefore I should propose to exclude entirely from the provisions of this Bill any horse sent abroad bona fide for racing purposes, or any horse that may come from abroad to England and return after racing. I should exclude also all brood mares going abroad, requiring in each instance that there should be given to them a certificate on behalf of the ruling authority of the turf—the Jockey Club—to the effect that they were going abroad for genuine racing purposes or purposes connected with racing. If the noble Lord can see his way to insert such provisions as I have mentioned in the Bill, from the point of view of racehorse owners I see no objection to it, and I should be prepared to give the Bill otherwise my most hearty support.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord opposite on the introduction of this Bill, the effect of which, in my opinion, will be entirely to stop this traffic in decrepit horses, of which we have read so much lately in the newspapers. This traffic is a disgrace, and it is positively cruel. If the Belgian and Dutch people want horse flesh to eat, we can provide them with that food, but it need not entail any cruelty whatever on this or on the other side of the water. As the noble Lord said, Dutchmen eat these decrepit horses at once. I mean that they are slaughtered at the port of entry. The Belgians, on the other hand, if there is any work left in these old and decrepit animals, take them into the interior of the country and work them as long as they can last. That, in my opinion and I am sure in the opinion of your Lordships generally, is excessively cruel.
It is dreadful to reflect that this country is responsible for all this. We are responsible for every bit of this traffic that has been going on for many years now, and for every bit of suffering that these old horses have had inflicted upon them, because there has not been stringent legislation to stop their being sent in this disgraceful state to the Continent. The only people who will not rejoice at the passing of this Bill are those callous ruffians who drive the halt and the lame of the horse world to our ports and ship them abroad. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals must be delighted at the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons without any word of opposition. The Society, I may say, have had no difficulty with regard to this traffic at the Port of London, because London magistrates have dealt in the most stringent manner with offenders. Let me give one instance. A butcher from abroad—he came from Antwerp, I think—was caught driving one of these horses through the London streets. The horse was in such a condition that it was slaughtered at once. The man was summoned, and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine. I read the account in The Times, and it was stated that he wept on being sentenced and said his wife and children would suffer because he would not be able to carry on this traffic. I should like to know, if the old and miserable horse could have spoken, like Balam's ass did, what he would have
1052
said. In other ports magistrates who have had to deal with this question have not been so stringent as the London magistrates. The consequence is that the traffic has gone on, and is going on at this moment.
The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, when I had the honour of speaking to your Lordships before on this subject, announced the appointment of a veterinary inspector, but it is quite impossible that one single inspector can deal with all the ports in Great Britain. What is more, this traffic is carried on in what I may call a sneaking sort of way. That is to say, on dark winter nights these horses are collected together and driven along the roads and put on board ship without anybody finding it out, and they arrive at their destination in a condition which is really a disgrace and a shame to this country. In my opinion the great point in the Bill is contained in Clause 1. I refer to the prohibition of the exportation of unfit horses and the appointment of veterinary surgeons to examine them, and the further provision that the expenses are to be borne by the owners of the horses. I think that is an excellent provision, and I am sure your Lordships will pass it without any amendment. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has always said that there is difficulty with regard to funds, but here it is provided that the people who choose to export these wretched horses shall themselves pay for the veterinary inspection, and that will, I am sure, have a very deterrent effect upon these ruffians. I need not say anything with regard to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Derby, because I am perfectly certain that a certificate from the Jockey Club would be quite sufficient to prove that the horse was a racehorse sent abroad for purposes connected with racing; and with regard to brood mares and any accident that might happen to them while on board, there would be no difficulty, I think, in introducing an Amendment on that subject to prevent confusion. I congratulate the noble Lord again on the introduction of this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD SHUTTLEWORTH: My Lords, I do not know whether any members of your Lordships' House have had the painful experience which I happen to have had of seeing the embarkation of some of these

1053
horses to the Continent. A public duty took me to Hull two years ago. I had just landed from the steamboat and was walking along the docks when I witnessed the most shocking sight I ever saw in my life. A number of these horses were being put on board ship. One was in a terrible state, so bad that I can scarcely describe it to your Lordships. Among other things I may mention that one of its forelegs was enormously enlarged and was about the size of its neck. This horse, I was told, and the other horses were being put on board for the purpose of being transported across the North Sea to a port in Belgium or Holland, I forget which, to provide food for some of our neighbours across the water. I do not know what the authorities had been doing, but any person of authority at Hull, seeing what I saw, certainly ought to have been armed with powers to prevent embarkation. I congratulate my noble friend on having brought this Bill forward, and I am quite sure, whatever Amendments it may need, that the House will unanimously wish that it should be passed into law.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself entirely with the expressions of sympathy with decrepit horses which have just been uttered by the noble Lord, and I should like to assure noble Lords opposite, with great respect, that if they showed the same sympathy to the victims of cattle-driving in Ireland they would receive an equal measure of gratitude. I do not know what line it is that undertakes this very unscrupulous traffic in dumb animals which are in such a deplorable condition, but it seems to me that responsibility lies at that door almost as much as it does with the perhaps thoughtless and ignorant people who are responsible for the shipment of horses in the first instance. A good many horses go from the part of the world where I come from to be eaten by the Belgians. Therefore I shall certainly support this Bill and do the best I can to make it a success. I have always ventured to think that the right, legitimate, and honourable end of a horse was to be eaten by the hounds. Still, if the Belgians prefer to eat the horses that we cannot finish up, we certainly ought to see that no cruelty is experienced in shipping them to that country.
I have a suggestion to make. It has been abundantly proved that there is a considerable
1054
traffic in horses which are not fit to stand the journey, and upon which the infliction of the journey involves very great cruelty. It is therefore proposed to put an end to this by having veterinary inspection of these horses at the port of embarkation. If you are going to have veterinary inspection there, that presupposes the idea, which is perfectly well founded, that somebody or other will yield to the temptation to send to the port horses that are not in a fit state. I therefore suggest that between now and the Committee stage some machinery should be devised by the noble Lord whereby the onus of producing the certificate should be placed upon the owner of the horse in his own home, so that the animal should not be put to the pain of the journey from, say, Birmingham to Liverpool, or from any other place inland to the port from which it is going to be shipped. If you were to stop this traffic at its source you would absolutely shut down the possibility of any unfit horse having to undergo a journey on the road from its home to the port of embarkation. I venture with every respect to make this suggestion to the noble Lord.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, with the object of the Bill now before the House I need hardly say that the Government entirely agree, and it is very satisfactory to the Government to see the great interest that is taken on both sides of the House in this question. I am in complete agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Derby, that there should be no interference at all with the legitimate horse trade of this country or with the traffic between England and Ireland. I also entirely agree that the rule applying to decrepit horses should not apply to racehorses. It would be, of course, a want of common sense to inspect and to vet Lemberg when he was going over to run for the Grand Prix, and to put a permit round the neck of a horse of that description. The noble Earl was quite right when he pointed out that it might be possible, as the Bill now stands, for an ignorant and stupid captain to destroy a valuable brood mare, racehorse, or carriage horse that was being taken abroad, because some trifling accident had happened. Such a valuable animal could very well be put in slings. I agree that that is a point that has been overlooked, but I do not think it would be very difficult to find words of some sort to meet this.

1055
The noble Earl, Lord Mayo, has taken great interest in this subject; everybody ought to be obliged to him for the good work he has done in this matter, and I think he must be very satisfied to see his efforts so near completion. As regards the experience—the horrible experience—of my noble friend behind me, Lord Shuttleworth, I hope that under the Order which is at present in force, as well as under this Bill, which I hope will become law, it will never be repeated. The House knows that the traffic in these decrepit horses is confined to certain ports. In Scotland the traffic is from Grangemouth and Leith, and in England it is from Newcastle, Hull, Goole, Grimsby, London, and a few from King's Lynn. Forty thousand horses are sent to Belgium and Holland annually. The port of Harwich does not export horses intended for slaughter, and I think from Harwich itself 5,000 horses are annually exported. In answer to Lord Willoughby de Broke, I think I ought, in common fairness, to say that we have reason to be grateful to the shipping companies, because they have always fallen in at once with any conditions that the Board of Agriculture have thought fit to impose upon them, and it is generally admitted by the public Press, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and on all sides that of late years there has been very little to complain of as to the way in which horses are carried at sea.
The Government quite approve of the object of the Bill, but as it stands there are some administrative difficulties, though they are not serious, which could be removed by Amendments which I hope my noble friend behind me will see his way to accept. I am also glad to be able to say that this Bill on the whole runs on all fours with our Order of April 16 last, which I hope and believe has given general satisfaction. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that after the adoption of practical Amendments it will prove a satisfactory and final stoppage of this traffic, which I need hardly say has created great indignation in the public mind, and to deal with which very strong measures were needed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have only risen to say that I am very glad the noble Lord has introduced this Bill, because although the Orders of the Board of Agriculture to a considerable extent cover the ground, the Acts under which
1056
those Orders were issued were not designed to stop this particular sort of traffic. I think the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture will agree with me that there are powers which the Board would be glad to use but which they cannot exercise because the general Act does not give them power to issue Orders in that direction. The country is indebted to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture for the steps which he has taken in that direction so far as his powers admitted, but I do not think they went far enough, and I therefore welcome this Bill because I believe it will be more efficacious than any Order of the Board of Agriculture.
It has been suggested that the procedure is not quite the right one which ought to have been adopted, and that, instead of an inspector of the Board of Agriculture being made responsible for the fitness of the animal for shipment, the examination ought to be made, I think my noble friend Lord Willoughby said, at the source—namely, upon the premises of the person shipping the horse. I suppose I am prejudiced from having had the honour of at one time occupying the position now filled by the noble Earl, Lord Carrington, but I venture to think there is much greater safeguard against abuse of this kind by entrusting these powers to an inspector of the Board of Agriculture than to an ordinary veterinary surgeon. Therefore I think the provisions of the Bill are preferable to the suggestion which fell from Lord Willoughby.
I quite agree with the noble Earl that the great shipping companies have done all they could to mitigate the suffering which might be inflicted on these animals when they have found them consigned to their care, but I do not think that that is quite all that has to be done. I confess that I should like to have seen a clause in the Bill which would have imposed a penalty not only on the person who shipped the horse, but also on the carriers. That has proved most efficacious in the case of the Aliens Act in America. If a pauper alien taken on board a ship and conveyed to America is not allowed to land, and if he has been shipped under conditions under which he ought not to have been shipped, it is the shipping company which has to bear the expense, and I do not think it would be a bad thing if some penalty were imposed on the shipping company for any breach of this Bill. At any rate I welcome the Bill as a step in the right

1057
direction and I think the noble Lord is to be congratulated on the general consensus of approval which his Bill has met with on all sides of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, two things, I think, have emerged from this conversation. One is that the Bill has the general approval of the House so far as its principles—principles which must commend themselves to all humane persons—are concerned. The other, I think, is that the machinery of the Bill requires very careful examination before we can think of passing it into law as it stands. I rise merely for the purpose of expressing the hope that one suggestion which I shall venture to lay before the noble Lord opposite may be considered before the Bill is dealt with in Committee. I gather from the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture that this traffic in disabled horses is carried on at certain ports and at certain ports only.
EARL CARRINGTON: That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If that is so, will it not be simpler and better that the Board over which the noble Earl presides should lay down regulations which can be made applicable to those particular ports at which the abuse is known to take place, rather than, as under the Bill, that the stringent procedure of Clause I should be made universally applicable to all ports and then that special exception should be made by the Board of Agriculture, in regard to certain places? I suggest that for the noble Earl's consideration. If that suggestion were to be adopted it would then be comparatively easy to appoint a veterinary surgeon at the particular ports from which these broken-down horses are shipped, and you would get over some of the difficulties which, I think, may arise in deputing Veterinary surgeons ad hoc for every particular case where a horse is moved. I hope the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will confer with the Department of Agriculture, and that we may have these matters considered before we are asked to proceed further with the Bill.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, with regard to the observations of Lord Derby, I may say that if the noble Earl can frame an Amendment that will protect racehorses and brood mares while not jeopardising the case of the horses for whose benefit
1058
this Bill has been devised, I have no doubt the Amendment will be accepted. As to the Amendments foreshadowed by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, he has not vouchsafed what they are, but I am generally in accord with him, and I expect his Amendments will be such as can be accepted by the promoters of the Bill. I will certainly adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and confer with the President of the Board of Agriculture upon the point to which the noble Marquess referred.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER rose to move to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, and to report to the House if they are of opinion that any amendments in such provisions are desirable.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion of which I have given notice I must admit that the question with which it deals is one of the most important which could be brought before the House, especially as regards local government, and that it has been for the last few years surrounded with difficulties. In those circumstances I confess I feel that it would have been of greater advantage if some member of this House of greater authority than myself could have brought forward this Motion. But the reason I have ventured to put it on the Paper is that I have been requested by the unanimous resolution of the County Councils Association to bring forward this question in your Lordships' House without delay. They feel that it is of such extreme importance that an attempted solution of it ought not to be deferred to any later period.
I have no wish to take up the time of the House at any length, but I think it is due to your Lordships that I should attempt,

1059
as concisely and as clearly as I can, to point out what the present position with regard to these financial adjustments is and to make some case for the remedy which I propose. Going back to 1888, when the measure of local government was carried which effected a revolution in county government, it may be remembered that there were necessary provisions in that Act dealing with the financial arrangements arising out of the change brought about by the Act itself. Section 32 of that Act applied to adjustments of urban and rural districts, and it also applied to adjustments between county councils and county boroughs. This section, I think it must be recognised, was inserted for the purpose of providing that neither a county nor a borough should be placed in a worse financial position by reason of the clauses of the Act. That section specially set out that an equitable adjustment with regard to the matters referred to and also with regard to other financial arrangements should be come to, either by agreement or by the Commissioners appointed for the purpose. The section appointed Commissioners for this particular purpose, and gave them the widest possible powers with regard to the settlement and determination of such questions as should be referred to them. The section went on to say that this settlement and determination should be on such terms and in such manner as the Commissioners, in their absolute discretion, might think just and fit with regard to any matters referred to them, and also with regard to such other matters as in their judgment were incident thereto. It it impossible to conceive much wider powers than were given to the Commissioners by that section, and I think it is clear that the Act laid down that these matters should be settled by an equitable adjustment.
It will probably be within the remembrance of most members of this House that the late Lord Derby was appointed President of that Commission, and, acting under the powers that were given them, the Commission proceeded to adjudicate in all the questions between the county boroughs and the counties. For that purpose they had cases argued before them, and gave their decisions. I am very conversant with the matters which were referred to this Commission because it so happened that, owing to a change of officials in my county, I was the person in the county who
1060
knew, perhaps, more about the council's financial affairs than anyone else, and it fell to my lot to argue one of the first cases before the Commission with regard to the adjustment of the finances between my county and a county borough within the county. I may mention that the noble Lord whom I saw in his place a few minutes ago, Lord Eversley, sat as Chairman of the Commission on that day. I do not wish to enter into any details with regard to that; but let me say that those decisions which were given by the Commission not only settled matters between the counties and county boroughs for the time, but for a large number of years afterwards they were accepted unchallenged as the authoritative decisions with regard to the difficult financial matters which were laid before that Commission.
But in 1907 this state of things was rudely disturbed. What was called the Hartlepool case, which was decided by the House of Lords, on appeal, entirely upset the decisions which for something like eighteen years had been accepted as recognised interpretations of the financial clauses of the Act of 1888. In the Hartlepool case it was held that when a new county borough is created by the separation of the borough from the county, the financial adjustment between the borough and the county does not include compensation for the loss of the contributing area. The decision rested, no doubt, on the wording of the Local Government Act. I understand that the expression "compensation" does not appear in those sections, and that the decision of the House of Lords, which overruled the previous decisions, turned on that point. It was held that an adjustment does not necessarily mean compensation, and that if the Legislature had intended it, it would have put it in perfectly clear language. I have not the slightest intention either of discussing, or in any way criticising, the Judicial decision of the House of Lords. Certainly this would not be the place to do it even if I so desired; but it is not at all necessary for my purpose.
What I want to point out is that the effect of that decision was to absolutely upset all the interpretations of the law that had been accepted for this large number of years, and that while it upset the law as it stood, it put nothing in its place on which anybody could rely. From

1061
that moment, therefore, the question of the financial arrangements between the counties and county boroughs was almost in a state of chaos. The state of the case was this. These decisions having been set aside, there was no power of getting an authoritative decision on this subject. The only way, in cases of extension of boroughs, in which a decision could be obtained was by bringing the matter before a Private Bill Committee, with the knowledge that the decision given by that Committee must be an uncertain one, and that the decision so given would settle nothing for the future. The result was that you had a state of things which made it imperative on every county authority whose county was being attacked by a borough wishing to make an extension to contest that case.
Within a very short time there were some important applications for extensions of borough boundaries. In 1908 the county borough of Manchester, the county borough of Blackburn, and the county borough of Burnley promoted Bills for the extension of their areas. There was a rather interesting discussion in the other House of Parliament with regard to one of those Bills—I think it was the Blackburn Bill—and in the course of that discussion it was proved that a serious state of things had arisen with regard to these financial arrangements between the counties and the county boroughs. It was shown that in many cases the decisions given by Committees were totally different in one case from another. I think with regard to those three Bills, which were before Parliament at the same moment, different decisions had been given concerning them; and in this House it was arranged that compensation on certain terms should be given in those three cases, the result being that the Bills were subsequently withdrawn. Is it possible to conceive any more unsatisfactory position for these large local bodies to be placed in than to be forced to spend a large sum of money in contesting cases; to have no chance of being able to rely that the decisions given, even if they were fair, would stand; and to feel that when the next Bill came forward a totally different decision would very likely be given?
Let me quote the remarks of a gentleman who was in a position which enabled him to speak without being supposed to be a partisan on either side. Mr. Emmott, Chairman of Ways and Means, said that—
1062
"In his opinion the question was so difficult that he thought the Local Government Board ought to give a lead to the House in this matter. If new legislation was required to settle the difficulty, it was for them to introduce it. If it could be settled in some way without legislation they should consider the question most carefully, so that when some other opportunity arose they would be prepared to advise the House upon it."
Then he went on to say—
"There was one other reason why the matter should be settled. Since the decision of the House of Lords every administrative county council must, of necessity, oppose every extension of boroughs or urban districts, and surely it was desirable in the highest degree that such a cause of friction should be removed from our local government."
Those remarks were made two years ago, and precisely the same state of things exists at the present moment, although, perhaps, the position is a still more acute one from the fact that there are more important Bills being brought forward this year. I do not for a moment mean to say that last year was a year in which it would have been possible for the Government or anybody else to have got a solution of this question. The whole time of both Houses was occupied with the most important financial and constitutional matters, and the atmosphere of either House probably did not lend itself to the settlement of a difficult question like this on reasonable lines. But this year, again, there are three boroughs—Birmingham, Bath, and Reading—one of them one of the largest in the United Kingdom, proposing to enlarge their boundaries, and it seems that it is time that some steps should be taken to try and arrive at a solution of this question on reasonable and equitable lines, and on lines which might be acceptable as trying to do equity and fairness both to the boroughs and to the counties.
It was in those circumstances that I placed this Motion on the Paper some days ago, and I should like to call the attention of the House to the circumstances in which I was asked to move it. No doubt there is considerable excitement about some of the important Bills that are before the other House, especially the Birmingham Bill, and it has been suggested in the newspapers that in moving this Resolution I and other members of the County Councils Association were trying to use our influence on one side—namely, against the Birmingham extension. Let me say that, as far as this Motion goes, it is moved in an absolutely non-contentious spirit. It was entirely

1063
in that spirit that the County Councils Association asked me to move it. I will explain the origin of the Motion. The County Councils Association had a very important meeting some weeks ago with regard to these questions—not only the extension question, but also the question of financial adjustments, which has reached such an acute stage. That meeting was attended by gentlemen and officials who probably knew more than any men in the country the past history of this matter, and who were thoroughly imbued with the necessity of its being settled on reasonable lines as soon as possible. After a very interesting discussion, a unanimous resolution was come to by the County Councils Association asking myself and another member of the association in the other House of Parliament to put this Motion on the Paper at once, in order that it might not be allowed to go over until it was too late, and until these other Bills might have reached a stage when it would be impossible to deal with this question.
That was the history of the Motion which I placed on the Paper in the first instance. It afterwards came before the Executive of the County Councils Association. The Executive confirmed the resolution, and especially asked that this Motion should not be mixed up in any way with any of the schemes before Parliament with regard to extension, but should be treated in an entirely non-contentious spirit with a desire to arrive at a solution which would be fair and equitable to all parties. I have ventured to explain that because I think it is important that it should be made clear that, whatever negotiations may have been going on between the parties to these Bills, neither I nor anybody concerned with this Motion have had anything to do with them whatever. I have probably said enough to make out a case for the appointment of a Joint Committee to see whether they cannot arrive at some authoritative decision with regard to the future of this difficult financial question. Let me say, with regard to my Motion, that our object was to make the reference as wide as possible and to include in it not only counties and county boroughs, not only urban and rural districts, but also any authorities which might, owing to the circumstances and the enlargement of their areas, be changing the status of local government. For instance, an urban district might be changed into a borough.
I have specially avoided referring to particular cases which might come before this Committee, because it seems to me that if one refers to a case as an important one which must come before such a Committee for their decision, it might then be taken that there are not other cases of equal importance. Therefore it is much better to leave the Resolution in the terms in which it stands, referring to all financial adjustments. If the few remarks I have made commend themselves to the House as making out a case for this inquiry, I hope you will accept the Motion. But, more than all, I trust that I may hope to receive the support of the Government, without whose assistance such an important matter as this is not likely to be able to be brought to a satisfactory solution. It is my hope that whatever Committee should be appointed should be a strong Committee, not only for the purpose of dealing in the way suggested in the Motion with the difficult matters before them, but also, when they have come to a decision, to enable them to commend that decision to both Houses of Parliament; and if, by bringing forward this Motion in the imperfect manner I have done, I am able to make a first step, at all events, towards a settlement of this question, which has given rise to such serious difficulties with regard to local government, I shall be only too amply rewarded; and I am sure those who are interested in local government would be greatly satisfied if we could get this Joint Committee. I beg to move the. Motion which stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, and to report to the House if they are of opinion that any amendments in such provisions are desirable.—(Lord Belper.)
LORD NEWLANDS*LORD NEWLANDS rose to move, as am Amendment to Lord BELPER'S Motion, after "1894" to insert "and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need hardly say that my Amendment is is no way hostile to the Motion of my noble

1065
friend, and I have reason to believe that my noble friend will gladly accept the Amendment. Its only object is to enlarge the scope of the proposed inquiry by the Joint Committee so as to include Scotland. Exactly the same difficulties have occurred in Scotland, and it is at the unanimous request of the County Council of Lanarkshire, a large division of which I represented in the House of Commons for twenty years, that I urge the inclusion of Scotland within the scope of the Joint Committee's inquiry. The facts of the situation have been so well and so clearly put before your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Belper that I need not recapitulate them. I will only add that, as far as I am concerned and as far as Lanarkshire is concerned, we are taking action not because of any specific case, but on the broadest of broad grounds—because of the general situation, which has become absolutely intolerable. I have reason to know that, at any rate in Scotland, both burgh authorities and county authorities would prefer almost any really definite principle, even if they did not absolutely approve of it, rather than the present condition of uncertainty, which gives rise to an enormous amount of absolutely useless but very expensive litigation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After ("1894") to insert ("and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894")—(Lord Newlands.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I rise to express the hope that your Lordships will agree to the Motion which has been moved by Lord Belper, as well as to the Amendment of the noble Lord who has just sat down. The fact of the matter is, as I think the noble Lord in introducing the Motion to your Lordships mentioned, that a great change has come over the spirit of affairs owing to the Judicial decisions of your Lordships' House. When the Act of 1888 was passed it was thought that the word "adjustment" between county councils and boroughs, where the latter sought to extend their boundaries, meant compensation for loss of rateable value. The opposite view, however, was held by noble and learned Lords, not only in the case which has been referred to by my noble friend, the Hartlepool case, but also in an earlier case, the Godstone case. Although one of those cases was under Section 32 and the other under Section 62 of the Act of 1888, the principle
1066
was the same. It was decided—the judgment was delivered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—that the word "adjustment" would apply only to existing income, to some source of revenue which existed at the time of the extension of the boundary of the borough and not to any future or problematic increase. The result of that has been that, whenever a borough has come to Parliament to extend its boundaries, it has invariably been met by opposition on the part of the county council, and by a claim for compensation.
In the case of the three Bills to which my noble friend referred—the Burnley, Blackburn and Manchester Bills—a Committee of the House of Commons inserted a clause in the Blackburn Bill providing for compensation, whereas other Committees of the House of Commons refused to insert such a clause in the Manchester and Burnley Bills. The consequence was that when the Blackburn Bill came under the discussion of the Whole House a Motion was made to expunge this clause so as to bring the three Bills into line and under similar conditions. The three Bills then came up to your Lordships' House, and were referred to a Committee under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Donoughmore, and that Committee decided that it was right and just to insert a clause giving compensation in each of these three cases. What happened? The promotors said: "Oh, this is not what we want at all. We will drop our Bill, and come to Parliament next year, or the year after, when perhaps we shall find somebody with a tenderer heart than Lord Donoughmore." The result is that the thing has become a sort of gamble. These great corporations come to Parliament for one purpose or another, and they put in a clause extending their boundary in the hope that Parliament will not insert a compensation clause. If Parliament does put in a compensation clause, they drop the matter and introduce it again in a successive session.
The real hardship is upon the adjoining areas, who must oppose these Bills under existing circumstances. Up to the time of the Judicial decision of your Lordships' House it was customary to have a friendly conference between the two authorities, and in nine cases out of ten a satisfactory arrangement was arrived at. In the present Parliament, in the case of a Bill

1067
for the extension of the borough of Eastbourne, rather than enter into a bitter contest the borough of Eastbourne consented to the insertion of certain clauses which have entirely satisfied the surrounding district and the county of Sussex. I entirely approve of the suggestion made by my noble friend that a Joint Committee should be appointed, and that some guiding principles should be laid down so as not to leave the matter to the arbitrary decision of this or that Committee of your Lordships' House.
I also welcome the remarks which I understood the noble Lord to make in moving the Motion. I did not follow him, I am afraid, quite as closely as. I should have wished, but I welcome the observation which I think he made that the Motion was not conceived in view of the Bills which have been brought before Parliament in the present session. There are some very important Bills. The Birmingham Bill has been mentioned. Perhaps that is the most important one of all, and I must say I should not like to see any of these measures, upon which considerable sums of money have been spent and to which much Parliamentary time will be devoted—I should not like to think that all that money and time would be wasted because a Motion might be made that the Bills should be postponed until this Joint Committee has reported and some legislation has taken place upon that Report. Therefore I hope, if His Majesty's Government agree to the appointment of this Joint Committee, that it will be on the understanding that it is not to interfere with the measures which are before Parliament in the present session. They may go on and be considered on their merits, and, of course, it will be open for Parliament hereafter to say, if they choose, that any general legislation which may be passed in a subsequent session shall be retrospective and embrace the measures which were before Parliament in the year 1910. If these are the principles on which my noble friend proposes the Resolution they have my hearty support.
LORD BELPER: I think I ought to explain that there was no intention of mixing up the case of Birmingham in this Motion. The reason the Motion was brought forward at as early a date as possible was that we felt, if such important Bills were to be brought forward this session with regard to the extension of boundaries, that any general law which was agreed
1068
upon deciding upon a principle with regard to adjustments ought to refer to those Bills as well as to others that will be passed hereafter.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, several noble Lords who have intervened in this debate having referred to the small part I have taken in this question, I feel it my duty to ask your Lordships to be patient with me for two or three minutes while I supplement what has been said with reference to what happened in the case of the Manchester, Burnley, and Blackburn Bills two years ago. As the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees reminded your Lordships, we were fortunate in having all these three Bills before us, and, as the result of very exhaustive inquiry, we came to the conclusion—I confess with some little hesitation on my part at the time, though as the result of subsequent inquiry I am now satisfied that our decision was correct, but with no hesitation whatever on the part of the other four members of the Committee—to insert a clause which restored the position of affairs to that which obtained before the decision of your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, in the year 1907, a decision which I desire to speak of with the greatest respect, though I confess that from the point of view of justice it inspires very little respect. We did feel that the case, on the merits, was conclusively made out, and that where a borough takes out the cream of a county as far as rateable value is concerned and at the same time practically takes away none or few of the liabilities which still remain on the county rates, compensation should be given to the county.
All that I need do in this connection is to mention two cases—the case of one of the Bills that came before us, and a case that was quoted before my Committee. The difficulty arises mainly, I think, over the upkeep of roads, which, in a county like Lancashire certainly, are almost entirely used for traffic between the boroughs, and towards the upkeep of which the boroughs make no contribution. Had the Manchester Bill been passed in the form in which it came to us, six per cent of the rateable value would have been taken away from the Hundred concerned, and only one per cent of the roads. But a much more extreme instance might have arisen in the case of Blackpool if the decision of your Lordships' House had been given a good many years before it was

1069
given. In the case of Blackpool forty-five per cent of the rateable value was taken away, but only two per cent of the roads; and it is obvious that very great injustice would have been done if compensation had not been paid in the peculiar circumstances of that case. I therefore desire to support the Motion of my noble friend below the Gangway. It is obviously desirable that some general rule should be reached which should act automatically in all cases of borough extension, of which we have many every session, and which I have no doubt will not diminish in number. In fact, if the Joint Committee should be successful in drafting a model clause which could be embodied in the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, I am sure that decision would be very warmly received by everybody concerned, for it would lighten the work in the Committee-rooms upstairs and result in doing justice to many parties who at present feel very great doubt as to whether they will receive justice in cases in which they are interested.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I regret that owing to indisposition my noble friend who takes charge of local government business in this House is not able to be here to-day, but I am not sorry to have an opportunity of saying a word on this question, because I entirely realise the far-reaching importance which attaches to it, as was explained by my noble friend who introduced this Motion. Perhaps he will allow me to congratulate him upon having abstained altogether from importing any kind of prejudice into his argument. The subject is one which has aroused, as we all know, a great deal of feeling; and I am glad to have observed that in the debate generally the same note which was set by my noble friend opposite has been maintained. This question as to whether, when an alteration takes place in a local government area under the Acts, compensation should be payable for loss of rateable value, is, of course, in the strictest sense a vexed question, and the decisions which have been given by your Lordships sitting judicially upon it have undoubtedly caused a state of confusion in the Committee-rooms, to which attention was called by my noble friend the Lord Chairman, and on those grounds it certainly is desirable that we should attempt to arrive at some fair and authoritative opinion on the subject.
1070
The case, as has been pointed out in debate, is somewhat complicated by the existence in Parliament of the three important Bills to which allusion has been made—those dealing with Birmingham, Bath, and Reading; and I was particularly glad to observe, both from the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Motion and also from the speech of the Lord Chairman, that there exists a distinct unwillingness to interfere with those Bills, although there is a desire that they should in their ultimate result be made subject to any general principle which is evolved. I was very glad to hear that, because, of course, it might have seemed to be a plausible argument to say that if a Joint Committee is going to sit to consider this whole question these Bills ought to be shelved. It is an argument of the kind which we often hear used, and in some cases with great plausibility. I am very glad, therefore, that it is agreed that a course of that kind would involve real hardship and unfairness to the parties, and that it is not desired that the progress of those Bills should be interfered with. I understand from my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board that the authorities of those three city and borough councils are quite willing that a clause should be inserted in their Bills, if they pass, to the effect that if the outcome of the inquiry by the Joint Committee should be to hold that compensation of this kind should be payable, their arrangements should then be subject to such a provision. I think your Lordships wilt agree that this seems fairly to meet the case, and that in agreeing to this proposal the great local authorities involved are showing a reasonable spirit.
His Majesty's Government have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing to the Motion of my noble friend opposite. And particularly in view of what I have just said about the existing Bills it is extremely important that the Joint Committee should be as strong a one as possible, and also that it should be—and I think it is a subject on which an ideal might be attained—of as far as possible an impartial character. It would be very undesirable that this should degenerate into a sort of tug-of-war between urban and county council interests, and therefore in suggesting the composition of the Joint Committee I am quite sure my right hon. friend will be fully alive to that aspect of the question, and will endeavour to make it as powerful

1071
and representative a Committee as possible. I understand that my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland is quite willing to agree to the inclusion of Scotland in the Motion, on the general understanding to which I have already alluded.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, will you allow me to take this opportunity, for which I have been waiting for some time, to say a few words, not with regard to this particular difficulty, but by way of pointing a moral. The difficulty arose out of a decision of this House in 1907, and, however imperfect that decision may have been, it followed the decision of the House in the year 1904, which left us no alternative but to rule as we did. The point to which I wish to draw attention for a moment is this. The ground upon which I founded my opinion was that no other coherent interpretation of the language used could possibly be put upon it except that which was put upon it in 1904 and again in 1907. Although I do not say it was a fact, I strongly suspect that when the two parties who were quarrelling in this business came to settle the words in Parliament they were both content to accept ambiguous language in the hope that it would turn out to be interpreted in their favour. I am sorry to be obliged to inform your Lordships that this is not an isolated discovery. What is done is this. Each side think that they have a wiser and more skilful draftsman, and when they put up language which will bear one, or the other, or, indeed, no meaning—I am speaking seriously, for sometimes a coherent meaning is very difficult—then they come to the Courts of law and say that His Majesty's Judges and then this House sitting judicially are to find some path of escape. I hope that if a Joint Committee is appointed they will endeavour to select words which will be perfectly plain, so that they may be intelligible to the ordinary person, instead of being the subject of conundrums that are almost insoluble to the piercing intellects of His Majesty's Judges and to the more obtuse intellects that are to be discovered here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to and the Resolution as amended also agreed to: Ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 11:
Age of appointment and transfer.
11.—(1) The word "thirty" occurring in subsection (2) of section twenty-five of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "forty-five" shall be inserted in lieu thereof. Provided that the said subsection shall not apply to the case of a person transferred or appointed to the post of chief constable.
(2) The words "Great Britain" occurring in subsection (4) of section four and subsection (6) of section twenty-seven of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "the United Kingdom "shall be inserted in lieu thereof.
(3) In lieu of subsection (3) of section twenty-five of the principal Act, the following provision shall apply:—
"The limit of age of a person not serving in a police force on appointment to the office of chief constable shall not exceed forty-five years. In the case of promotion or transfer of a person serving in the police force to the post of chief constable in the same or another police force, the limit of age shall not exceed fifty-five years."
LORD REAY LORD REAY moved seven Amendments which he had on the Paper, with the object of making the clause read—
11.—(1) The word "thirty" occurring in subsection (2) of section twenty-five of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "forty-five" shall be inserted in lieu thereof. Provided that the said subsection shall not apply to the case of a person transferred or appointed to the post of chief constable.
(2) The words "Great Britain" occurring in subsection (4) of section four and in subsection (6) of section twenty-seven of the principal Act shall be deleted and the words "the United Kingdom "shall be inserted in lieu thereof.
(3) Subsection (3) of section twenty-five of the principal Act shall no longer have effect, and in lieu thereof the following provision shall be inserted:—
"The limit of age of a person not serving in a police force on appointment to the post of chief constable shall be forty-five years. In the case of promotion or transfer of a person serving in a police force to the post of chief constable in the same or another police force, the limit of age shall be fifty-five years."
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 4, line 33, after ("and") insert ("in") Clause 11, page 4, line 36, leave out ("In lieu of") Clause 11, page 4, line 37, after ("Act") insert ("shall no longer have effect, and in lieu thereof" and leave out ("apply") and insert ("be inserted")
Clause 11, page 4, line 39, leave out ("office" and insert ("post")
Clause 11, page 4, line 40, leave out ("not exceed") and insert ("be")
Clause 11, page 5, line 1, leave out ("the") and insert ("a") Clause 11, page 5, line 3, leave out ("not exceed") and insert ("be")— (Lord Reay.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE INCOME TAX.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether persons made subject to the payment of Income Tax by the Finance Act, 1909–10 are still chargeable at the rate of ninepence only on the earned portion of their income when the total income is below £2,000, and, if so, what opportunity has been afforded to such persons for claiming relief since the Finance Bill became law, and why they have been informed that it is too late to claim to be charged at ninepence.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a few days ago the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees raised a discussion in this House on the question of the Super-Tax return, with which I may say incidentally I am still struggling, somewhat assisted by a correspondence which has passed between him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the course of that debate I ventured to put to my noble friend Lord Denman a question on another aspect of the Income Tax, which he very properly said he could not answer without notice. I have, therefore, put it on your Lordships' Paper for to-night. It refers to the payment of Income Tax at the lower rate of 9d. That rate, I believe, is still payable on the earned income of persons whose total income is below £2,000, and the question which I put was what opportunity had been afforded to such persons of claiming the relief to pay the 9d. Income Tax rate since the Finance Act, 1909–10, became law. I suggested then that, so far as I could discover, the date before which they had to claim was September 30, 1909. That was a date at which the Finance Bill had not left the House of Commons, and a date six months anterior to that when it became law. I have not since discovered that they have had any opportunity of making this claim since the liability was imposed upon them by the passing of the Finance Act. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Chancellor of the
1074
Exchequer, and I would ask the noble Lord what is the answer to the Question on the Paper.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for postponing his Question until this afternoon. As he is aware, a similar question was answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place last week, but as the noble Earl has somewhat developed his case perhaps I may be allowed to go a little more into detail in the matter. The complaint of the noble Earl, as I understand it, is that although the Finance Act of 1909–10 did not become law until April of this year, people with earned incomes of under £2,000 were obliged to put in a claim for relief before September 30 of last year, or, if they failed to put in a claim by that time, the relief was refused by the Inland Revenue. On the face of it, that may seem a hardship upon certain individuals, but I submit to your Lordships that as a matter of practice, with the possible exception of isolated cases, no real hardship has in fact occurred, because everybody knew last year that the Income Tax would be imposed sooner or later. Whatever happened to the other taxes or to the Budget itself, it was perfectly certain that sooner or later the Income Tax would be collected, and it was well known that the same relief would be granted as in previous years. As early as May of last year Form No.12, which provides space for inserting a claim for this relief, was issued to all those persons who were likely to be entitled to claim relief. They received that form, filled it up, and returned it as usual to the Inland Revenue by the specified date. There may have been cases where people did not receive that form. But I would suggest that the great majority of these professional gentlemen were well aware of the practice of the last few years, and I think it is very improbable that all those who have failed to make a claim have failed to do so because of the Budget not becoming law last year. I am informed by the Inland Revenue that ever since this arrangement has been in force—namely, since 1907—there have been a small number of applications for relief made each year after September 30, but in these cases relief has always been refused, and the Inland Revenue see no reason why, in the very few cases that have occurred this year, they should depart from the ordinary practice in the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions on the statement he has just made. It appears, as I understand his answer, in the first place that I am correct in stating that although the liability was not imposed by law until April, 1910, the claims for relief should have been made before September 30, 1909. That incidentally seems to me a very strange constitutional doctrine to lay down. I do not know what the noble Lord means by talking about people being well acquainted with this practice, which only came into force in 1907. What does the noble Lord mean by saying "people are well aware"? Is it considered to be the business of the taxpayer to study, not the Statutes which impose taxation, but the debates in Parliament and discussions in the political arena, and to keep himself informed of what is said to be likely to come to pass? I have taken the opportunity of searching through the debates to see what statement at any time was made to the House of Commons that the persons entitled to pay at the 9d. rate would have to make their claims before the Finance Bill became law. I have been unable to find that any such public notice was given at any stage of the Bill in the other House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore I think people were legitimately entitled to assume that they could well wait until some legal obligation was imposed upon them before attending to the forms. At the time the forms were sent there was no statutory obligation to fill them up. I understand that these persons are to be penalised because they did not take the Budget as introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the law of the land. I suggest that it is a novel doctrine to lay down that the taxpayer must take the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the law. It is farcical to say that under a Statute passed in April, 1910, relief must be claimed in September, 1909. I am unwilling to believe that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer really wishes to penalise people with small incomes, and instead of 9d. in the £ to make them pay 1s. 2d. on their earned incomes. The Treasury should have regard to the peculiar circumstances of last year and to the extreme hardship of this case. I hope that a more reasonable view will be taken of this matter, that these people will be given the same opportunity as has been extended to those entitled to the shilling
1076
scale—namely, opportunity up to July 31 of this year to make their claim—and that they will not be deprived of this relief by a not very creditable trick.
LORD WELBY: My Lords, I wish it were possible for His Majesty's Government to pay attention to the remarks of my noble friend. The situation this year was a very remarkable one, and I think there is a good deal of reason for the arguments which my noble friend has addressed to the House. I quite agree from my experience in these matters with Lord Denman that in ordinary years probably little hardship occurs from the practice of the Department, but considering the very unusual condition of affairs last year I think there is some ground for asking the Treasury to exercise clemency in the matter. I only say this in the very peculiar circumstances of last year.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I think it is an extraordinary thing to say that a return claiming a rebate must be made by a date long before the Government have any power to enforce payment of the tax, and I consider that this is a very dangerous precedent to set up. I trust that the Treasury will reconsider the matter and show some clemency, because, after all there are only a few persons who will not get the benefit of this rebate.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I wish to take exception to the doctrine which appears to be laid down that it is the duty of the public to find out beforehand from discussions in the other House what are likely to be the taxes imposed for the year. It has always been understood that as soon as a Bill became law the debates in the House of Commons and the promises made by Ministers were null and void, and that the only thing which lawyers could recognise was the enacting sections and not even the preamble to the Act. Therefore I do think it is rather hard in the case which the noble Earl has brought forward that these persons should have to suffer. I agree with Lord Welby that this is a matter in which the Treasury might act leniently, especially as the cases are so very few, and at any rate conform to what is generally known as the rule of law.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord

1077
Denman will convey to the Treasury the views which have been expressed by noble Lords in this discussion, but I am bound to say, although the noble Earl who introduced the subject pleaded his case with his usual skill, I cannot remain otherwise than unconvinced, and for this reason. Noble Lords who have spoken have seemed to imply that some obligation was placed upon these Income Tax payers to do something which they would not wish to do, almost, indeed, as though they had had to make some payment in the month of September although the payment might never fall due. But what they were asked to do by September last was to exercise a privilege, and whether the Budget passed or not it would do them no harm to have exercised that privilege. I should have thought that it was the most obvious course for any man to send in his form in the usual manner without reference to the political situation. My noble friend behind me has been accused of laying stress upon
1078
the reading of Parliamentary debates. It seems to me that the case is precisely the opposite. If these gentlemen, instead of wasting their time in studying the debates and attempting to prophecy the political situation, had attended to their own affairs and taken the ordinary step which they would have taken in any other year, and sent in their claim for relief, they would not have fallen into their present trouble. I am very sorry indeed that any people should suffer, even through their own fault. I believe, as my noble friend says, it is the fact, though it seems strange, that every year people of moderate income do not claim the rebate, and although I have no doubt my noble friend will make the proper representations to the Treasury I cannot feel that the case is quite so strong as some of my noble friends behind me seem to think.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord HILLSBOROUGH (M. Downshire) —Took the Oath.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES AND DRIFFIELD NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Monday next.
FLYDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS(No.1.) BILL
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed 3 the House that the opposition to the Gorseinon Electric Lighting Order was withdrawn: The Orders made on Tuesday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order, discharged.
WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MIDWIVES (No. 2.) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Midwives Act, 1902 —Was presented by the Lord President (E. Beauchamp); read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 104.)

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L]
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bills read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. (1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (PHYSICAL TRAINING) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT HILL: My Lords, the Bill which stands in my name, and to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon, is one which I think will commend itself to your Lordships. It is a non-contentious Bill, and I am thankful to say it is a non-Party Bill. As is set out in the Memorandum attached to the Bill, its object is to secure continuous physical training for the youth of both sexes up to the age of sixteen years, in order, as far as possible, to ensure for each young person the possession of sound and healthy vital organs, a. deep mobile chest, and the development of an evenly-balanced muscular and nervous system, and thus to arrest the deplorable physical degeneration disclosed by the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration.
Before I attempt to touch upon any of the clauses, I should like to make a few

167
remarks upon the general question. Physical training is no new idea, nor is it promoted by faddists, as some people imagine. It is backed by the whole of the medical profession throughout the civilised world. Sweden has had physical training for over a century, and we in England have to a certain extent introduced it in our Army and Navy and in our colleges in recent years, and two years. ago I congratulated His Majesty's Government upon introducing it into the education curriculum of our elementary and secondary schools. The only objection to the Government's scheme, to my mind, was that it did not go far enough. It only takes the education of our children up to the age of fourteen, at which age they leave school. The Bill that I am asking your Lordships to read a second time this afternoon takes children up to the age of sixteen, and I think we are all agreed that the ages between fourteen and sixteen, and even up to eighteen, constitute the most critical time in a child's life as far as his health and physical culture are concerned.
I have for many years taken a great interest in the health of the children of the masses of this country, and I have personally studied the various systems of physical training throughout the world; and having carefully studied the subject, when this Bill was shown to me last year by the promoters—the National Hygienic League —I had no hesitation in informing them that it would give me great pleasure to introduce it in your Lordships' House. The information which I have acquired from personal experience of physical training shows that the children as a whole are not gaining or improving under the present system. The chief reason that I could find for that is that the teachers themselves do not possess that practical knowledge which they should have in order to impart this instruction to their pupils. For that reason the physical culture as it is at present given in our schools is practically useless as far as the health and future physique of the children are concerned. The object of this Bill is not to produce athletes or acrobats. That is not our object. Our object is to ensure for each young person good physical health in the future; and in order to do that it is absolutely necessary that the teachers themselves should have practical experience and knowledge of this physical training before they impart it to the children.
168
I have quite recently been inspecting several of our schools throughout the country where this so-called physical culture is given under the Board of Education. What do I find? It is given in a very mechanical way. The teachers have a book laying down what they are to do, which way a child's arms are to be held, and how a child is to stand, and that is about all they know. They say it by heart, and that satisfies the inspectors. But that is practically no good for the child's health or his future physical culture. Ninety-five per cent. of the children would not be able to say why they were doing this drill, or what good it was going to do them in the future. That is exactly how physical culture is being taught in our schools at the present time. What I want to bring about by this Bill is an improvement in the physique and the health of the children of this country, and in order to do that we must have the teachers instructed upon a sound basis. The system which we propose in this Bill is based on the fact that time teachers should have an accurate theoretical and practical knowledge of the physiological effect of each exercise, which effect is pre-determined and specially localised. If we do this, the children will receive benefit from it.
The physical welfare of the boys and girls of this country should be the first consideration, not only of the State, but of time whole Empire, and it must be very noticeable to any one who is constantly going through our large towns and cities that, almost every minute of the day you see children of all sizes and all grades with humped backs and congested and flat chests, half of them walking about with their mouths wide open—a regular death trap, for they inhale every microbe. That alone should help to convince us of the necessity of devising some machinery by which our children can obtain proper physical exercise and be taught how to carry themselves in their every-day life. We know that the youths of this country have greatly deteriorated. In the time of Cromwell our race was known as the finest in the world, but I doubt very much if we can make that statement to-day. The average height of the Englishman to-day is about 5ft. 7in., and that of an Englishwoman 5ft. 5in., and I am given to understand by those who have obtained information on the point that in America and

169
Sweden the average is 1½in. higher. We know that in recruiting for the British Army we have found great difficulty in obtaining men of the proper standard. I have figures here which show that out of 77,000 youths who offered themselves for enlistment over 29,000 were rejected as physically unfit. I claim that that would not have been the case if we had had a system of physical training in force such as is suggested in this Bill. And we remember what a great difficulty there was in the late South African war in finding men of physique and stamina to go to the Front.
It is true that there are many gymnasia scattered all over the country, and in most schools physical training in some form or other is being taught; but in these cases how many of the children know what they are being taught this drill for? I regret to say that in many instances the teachers use these drills as a punishment for the children whom they are unable to manage in the classes. The consequence is that the child hates the drill and it is most distasteful to him. Under the provisions of this Bill I hope to make physical training a pleasure to the child. Violent exercises are not necessary. What is needed is careful instruction as to the child's proper way of standing and above all the proper way of breathing, which is really the base of the whole matter. If our children were taught how to breathe properly and how to stand, we should overcome a great many of the difficulties which we now experience. These flat-chested children in time develop lung and other diseases, but by a proper system of breathing and by physical exercises such as we propose in this Bill they would to a certain extent be able to fight against them.
As I have said, ninety-five per cent. of the children in the schools to-day are quite unaware of the benefit receivable from physical culture; but if the children were properly taught I have not the slightest doubt that we should be able to bring the standard of our future generations up to what it ought to be. In order that we may have this physical training properly given, it will be necessary to set up some machinery by which either the present teachers in the schools may be so instructed that they will be able to impart the knowledge in a proper and efficient way to the children, or special teachers will have to be appointed to visit certain districts. This need not be a drill
170
which will be distasteful to the children. After they have been properly instructed as to the benefit they are to receive, they will take a pleasure in their drill, and there will be no occasion to use the compulsory clauses of which we have a few in the: Bill.
I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have read the Report of Lord George Hamilton's Commission on the Poor Law, in an Appendix to which Mr. Sidney Jackson alludes to physical training and shows very clearly the great necessity there is for it in this country. Sweden introduced physical training in the year 1839, and to-day it forms part and parcel of their every-day life. Every man, woman, boy, and girl is doing physical training constantly in Sweden, with the result that they have good physique and are in a healthy condition; and in that country we do not see about the streets those poked heads, narrow chests, and humped backs which are so common in this country. In America of recent years they have also brought physical training greatly into effect. What can be done in other countries surely we can do in England.
No doubt I shall be told by noble Lords opposite that one of the great difficulties is the expense. I do not intend to go into the financial side of the question, but I should like to say that already there is a large expenditure upon the physical training at present carried out in our schools, and I am told by experts that the extra physical training which I am asking for in this Bill will not be of such great cost that it need be specially mentioned in a Second Reading debate. From what I can understand, there is a very good scheme prepared by the National Hygienic League, which if taken into consideration by His Majesty's Government, would enable this Bill to be put into operation very easily. There are several clauses in the Bill which I fully expect will be criticised. I hope that the criticisms will be many, because it will enable us to put the Bill into better shape. I think I can assume that the principle of the Bill will be accepted by all your Lordships, but no doubt the machinery which has been devised to carry it out may receive rather severe criticism. I have heard that there are to be some criticisms upon certain clauses, but not knowing what those criticisms will be I cannot anticipate them.
I believe there are some difficulties with regard to making arrangements with the

171
Board of Education for carrying out the training of the teachers. Probably that will be one criticism. There will be another criticism upon the continuation of these classes after the child has left school, but I do not see any reason why there should be. We already have evening classes, at which the attendance is very good. The boys are being taught trades of all kinds, and the girls domestic economy. I think if we were to add a good physical training we should then have some of the most perfect schools in the world. If a child attended these physical drills twice or three times a week, it would be sufficient, once he understood what he was to do and what benefit he was to receive by it, to enable him to carry on the physical culture himself in his own home. I am perfectly certain that it would be done with the greatest pleasure by all children, and that there would be no difficulty as far as that is concerned. Neither would there be any objections raised by parents, for since this Bill has been in circulation I have received communications from all parts of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, not from teachers and experts, but from parents themselves, welcoming the Bill and expressing the hope that it will become law. I do not think I need go into particulars of the clauses, because I should like to hear the criticisms of those who will speak after me. But before sitting down I would say that the criticisms might be met to a certain extent by our meeting together and consulting on the matter, and probably if the Bill reaches another stage they could be met by the insertion of Amendments. I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and I trust that it will meet with a favourable reception at your hands and at the hands of His Majesty's Government, and that we shall in the near future see it passed into law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Hill.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened with sympathy to the words that have fallen from the noble Viscount. At the same time the noble Viscount seems to be in ignorance of the fact that physical exercises have been carried out in the schools of this country for a great deal longer than two years. It is now twenty-one years since I myself introduced a Bill into this House. I re-introduced the Bill twenty years ago. It was rejected at the time, as most novel
172
measures are in Parliament, but the third year it was introduced it was accepted practically en bloc by the Liberal Government of the day. I went to the Minister who was responsible for education at the time, and who had just come into office, and asked him if he was going to oppose my proposal like his predecessor had done. He said, "No, I do not think there is any reason for it. I think I can incorporate your Bill in my Code." That was done; and ever since those days physical exercises have been carried on in the schools of this country.
I cannot say that I agree with all the noble Viscount has said about the small effect which those physical exercises have had upon the children. I am not here to defend His Majesty's Government. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves, and we shall hear what their spokesman has to say later. But my experience, and it is a large experience, is not that of the noble Viscount. I am continually going round visiting schools, not only in my neighbourhood but in others, in connection with another matter, and I have never yet found a school where there is no actual practical drill. I have found that as a general rule really excellent work is being done. I do not think the noble Viscount is aware—at all events he has not mentioned it—that these physical exercises are done under regulation and organisation. After the Government of the day accepted the Bill which I brought in and included it in their Code, a Committee, on which I had the honour of sitting, was appointed by the War Office and the Education Department, and a gentleman named Colonel Fox was put at the head of it. A syllabus was drawn up. That syllabus has, no doubt, been altered since those days, and what I thought was a very useful part of it—the military part—has been to a large extent eliminated. But at all events the syllabus is there. I hold in my hand the last syllabus of physical exercises for public elementary schools issued by the Board of Education in l909, and if the noble Viscount reads that syllabus lie will see that Sir Robert Morant and those who work with him have gone very thoroughly into the question. They have considered very carefully all that is absolutely necessary for the health of the children, and although there are parts of the syllabus with which I do not agree—especially, as I have said, the one

173
from which military drill has been eliminated—still I must say I think that, as far as it goes, it is an excellent system.
I would also point out to the noble Viscount that this system has been founded in a great measure upon the very one which he has been pressing—the Swedish system. I know that that system was introduced, because I was chairman of a voluntary association which gave £400 to bring over from Sweden one of the first teachers who gave instruction to the teachers in London in the Swedish system. No doubt there have been alterations from the actual pure Swedish system, but I do not think there are any alterations with which the noble Viscount or any one else can find fault. Therefore I am glad to be able to say that I do not agree with the noble Viscount in his statement that the exercises, as far as they have gone, have not been of use. I have judged on four different occasions the exercises of the children attending the London elementary schools, and I can tell the noble Viscount that if he would go to one of those exhibitions and see the exercises performed he would be more than pleased. It is wonderful what the children do, and their work is a source of great delight and pleasure to any one who feels, as we all do, that this matter is one of very great importance to the nation at large. The noble Viscount speaks about acrobats. I have never seen any acrobatic performances of any kind or description in connection with elementary schools. The performances that I have seen are almost entirely Swedish—pthat is to say, without apparatus. Of course, it is absolutely wrong that this drill should be given as a punishment, but I have never known it so given. If it is done, I should hope that after the debate to-night such a thing will be stopped. As a matter of fact, the drills that I have seen are enjoyed by the children. I do not know whether, if you were to ask every child whether he is aware of the purport of the drill, he would be able to give you an answer, but I do not think it very much matters whether he knows what the drill is for or not, as long as the drill is improving his physical condition.
I regret very much that the noble Viscount has put into his Bill a clause directly eliminating military drill. I think that is a most fatal thing for the Legislature of this country to do. The trend of
174
public opinion, whatever some of us may think, is in the direction of military drill for the young. Our Colonies are showing us the way to do it, and we shall have to come to it some day whether we like it or not; and it appears to me a fatal and retrograde measure to put a clause into a Bill saying that under no circumstances whatever shall military drill be carried out in the schools of this country. I hope that that clause, at all events, will be deleted. I do not suppose for one moment that the noble Viscount really desires the elimination of military drill. We know there are people in this country who believe that military drill is very wicked. How they can arrive at that conclusion I, for one, am absolutely at a loss to understand. But I suppose the noble Viscount thought it was wise and expedient to put in such a clause in order that the Bill might pass.
Personally, I do not see any necessity for the Bill except in regard to the raising of the age, and in that I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. At present we only have physical exercises up to the age of 14, and I, for one, should be delighted to support any Bill which would make it compulsory upon every child to go through physical exercises up to the age of sixteen, and I would even say longer. In Sweden the age is eighteen, and no difficulty has been found with regard to it there. I would also give one warning to the noble Viscount. I have had a good deal of experience in regard to physical exercises. I have been myself at the head of one of the teachers' associations for physical exercises. The noble Viscount must remember that there are a great number of systems of physical exercises in this country. They all want to have the knife in each other, and he must be very careful that he does not run a Bill for the express purpose of one particular class of teacher. We have to keep quite clear of that in a national work. In conclusion, I repeat that, while sympathising with the noble Viscount in the general purport of his Bill, I must say that in the particular subjects to which I have alluded I entirely disagree with him.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, with the objects of the Bill as set forth in the Memorandum on the first page I am in entire sympathy. I cannot say that I entirely approve of the methods which it is proposed to adopt, but I shall confine my criticism to one single point. The Bill contains a most extraordinary pro-

175
vision, a provision so extraordinary, and, as it seems to me, so uncalled-for, that it has given rise to a suspicion that the objects of the promoters as set forth in the Memorandum are not their whole objects and that they have some ulterior object. The provision I refer to is that contained in Clause 4, subsection (2), which runs—
"Provided always that no child or young person shall, in the course of any physical training by this Act provided, be allowed to use, or be taught the use of, any war weapon of any kind whatsoever."
Why has this provision been inserted? With what object? At whose instigation? The noble Viscount was silent on the matter; but from what I know of him myself I find it very difficult to believe that he can be in sympathy with it. On the contrary, I should be very much surprised if he were not glad to see it eliminated.
This provision is directly contrary to the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee, upon which the Bill professes to be based. I imagine that this provision has been put in to appease those who are known as Little Englanders. But why should we seek to appease them? Why should the noble Viscount pander to these people, with whom I know he has no sympathy whatever? It is difficult to understand the attitude of those who object to the principle of universal military service, but it is impossible to understand the attitude of mind of those who would hinder and discourage that voluntary system of military service on which we depend at the present time. Surely there is some strange inconsistency about those who object to compulsion on principle, and yet who would apply this very principle of compulsion in this drastic form for the purpose of giving physical training. I say if you are going to extend the principle of compulsion which forms part of all our legislation, and more particularly of all the laws which have to do with education and the training of the young, then why should not the State get all the advantage it possibly can from that compulsion? Why should the State impose on itself this restriction which is contained in the particular section of the Bill which I have read? Why should it fetter the discretion of the local authorities? What becomes of those principles of local self-government and trust in the people with which we are all so ready to profess our sympathy and our belief?
176
I take it that no one will disagree that the first necessity of the State, indeed of any State, is that of self-protection, of defence, and I think it is also pretty clear that if you have healthy and vigorous citizens they are better capable of taking part in the defence of the State than those who are weak and degenerate and of the description to which the noble Viscount referred. But if that be so, why should the State pay for this additional physical training and then deliberately and of its own will forego the greatest advantage which might result from it? I go a step further. Why should you deprive your physical training of that one element which would be more likely than any other to make it effective? We all know that brain and muscle depend and interact on one another. Very little advantage can be derived from muscular exercises unless there is sonic mental stimulus. We all know that an interesting and exciting game does a great deal more good than mere exercises with dumbbells or Indian clubs. If you want the whole population to improve their physique and to do so with heartiness and goodwill—and that was one of the points on which the noble Viscount particularly dwelt, and I may say that it impressed me that he felt undue confidence in his system in that very respect—you must give them some motive which appeals to the imagination, and it must be a motive which affects the nation as a whole.
The noble Viscount told us that most of the children who go through the present-day physical exercises do not know what the drill is for, and he was eager to admit that this was a disadvantage and marred the value of those very physical exercises. Surely that is a point to which lie ought to have given attention. He ought to have supplied this mental stimulus. He ought to have provided a motive which appeals to the nation as a whole. What higher and better motive is there than that of patriotism? If you make the object of your physical exercises one which has direct reference to patriotism, you will give that stimulus, and one which will be understood by all, even by the youngest child; and I defy any one to name any other motive which could take the place of such a one. And in this respect I should like to ask, Why are the patriotic to pay for their own physical training when it is a matter of Cadet Corps, Church Lads

177
Brigade, and so forth, while the unpatriotic are to get it at the public expense? That seems to me to be an inconsistency which requires some explanation.
We all want to improve the physique of the nation—I take it we are all thoroughly alive to the unsatisfactory condition of the national physique at the present time—and I do not hesitate to say that I am one of those who believe firmly that the proper method of doing so is that of universal military service. That is a method which is known to be successful. We have the example of other countries. We have the example of our own country in the past. The noble Viscount himself admitted it. He told us that in the days of Cromwell the physique of our nation was better than that of any other. But to those who do not care for the teachings of history, or for the example of foreign nations, I would point to the great success which attends military form of exercises at the present time. By what method can you do more good to poor, weedy lads from the slums of great cities than by giving them a spell of military training in a seaside camp or elsewhere, and by giving them some of the advantages which the rich obtain anyhow, and which are out of the reach of the poor? With those examples before us, why should we go and deliberately say that the military method of physical training is to be barred?
You object to militarism, whatever militarism might mean. You are not going to check militarism by keeping the people ignorant of the use of the weapons of war. If you want to check militarism you must keep soldiers out of their sight. You must never let them see a soldier or heat anything about the Army. But if you think that there is so much latent and potential military ardour in the nation that the mere fact that they are taught to shoot with the rifle will make them all burn with a desire to go into the Army, how can you consistently say that the nation as a whole will never accept universal military service? Again, you profess to be democratic, and I presume it is considered to be democratic to give in a measure of this kind to the poor advantages at the public expense which are at present only within the reach of the well-to-do. If that be your principle, why withhold from them the healthy and admittedly beneficial exercise of practice with military
178
arms and particularly of rifle shooting? I said at the outset that I was going to confine my criticism to this one point, and I will do so. I feel very strongly upon it, and if the Bill gets to a further stage I shall certainly ask your Lordships to omit subsection (2) of Clause 4.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, with the view of the noble Lord who has just sat down I entirely concur. I should be exceedingly glad to see a measure for universal military training passed into law. The provision which the noble Viscount has inserted in the Bill apparently in order to make it easier to pass has been used as an argument against the whole Bill. But whatever may be said with regard to the earlier part of the Bill, there is one clause in it—I refer to Clause 5—which makes me hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. It is in entire accord with the recommendations of the important Commission which sat upon the relief of distress that something should be done to keep a hold upon those boys who leave school at the age of fourteen, and Clause 5 constitutes a great step forward in dealing with those who form the large class of "unemployables." I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, although I trust that in Committee the clause which has been so severely criticised by the noble Lord who has just sat down will be deleted.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the expressions of general approval of the principle which underlies this Bill, and the desire that there should be a complete system of physical training in this country. But having expressed so much approval of the principle of the Bill, the noble Viscount probably knows enough about the general practice in debates in this House to expect that I shall now venture to explain to him various reasons why the Bill as it stands is not acceptable to His Majesty's Government. It was with regret that I heard the noble Viscount express disapproval of the present physical education which is given in the schools of this country. 1 would venture to ask him, however, in what way this Bill will improve that physical education. It leaves it in the hands of the same authorities as have the control of it at the present time, and I think it will be necessary for him to

179
include in his Bill sonic assured method of getting the physical education more in accordance with what he wishes it to be.
I think it only fair to point out, on behalf of the Board of Education, that the work of physical training in the schools has lately been reorganised. It is only since January that the work has been so reorganised, and I am sure the noble Viscount would be one of the first to acknowledge that work of this kind cannot be remedied all at once. The thing is to train the teachers, and I can assure him that that work is already in hand. It was only last night that the President of the Board of Education made a general statement upon the work of his Department, and I shall venture to quote to your Lordships the passages which especially refer to physical education. My right hon. friend said—
"On another side of their physical condition I have to report that great developments have taken place in the matter of physical exercises. Two years ago some members of my Board embarked on devising a general physical exercise syllabus, largely on the Swedish system. That syllabus has met with great acceptance, and 92,000 copies of it have been sold. It would be impossible to carry on the physical exercise work in all the schools under the local education authorities unless the teachers were prepared to play a part in it, and in the training colleges no fewer than 4,700 students have passed the examination in physical exercise since Christmas of last year. That means that;those teachers who go up from the training colleges will not be specialised physical exercise teachers, but it will be part of their ordinary work."
My right hon. friend went on to make a reference to military service which I am afraid will not commend itself to noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. Speaking of the difference between military service and physical training and emphasising the advantage that is given to children especially from physical training, he said—
"Military service can only benefit selected men—"
LORD NEWTON: We are dealing with children, not with men.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is true; but I do not think there is any harm in quoting a passage from a general statement made by my right hon. friend comparing generally physical training and military service. Mr. Runciman said—
"Military service can only benefit selected men. Those who are least physically fit, those who most require physical exercises, would be debarred from
180
the very training and opportunity that would be provided under a military system, and, moreover, military service does not include women and girls, and can be in no way a substitute for physical exercise. And it can only include those who are comparatively grown-up. What we want to-day is to get hold of the children as early as possible and enable them not only to develop their muscles when grown-up, but to grow up well."
I think every member of your Lordships' House will agree that whatever we may think as to the benefits of military training, it ought to be preceded by some system of physical training.
Perhaps I might now turn to some of the criticisms that were offered by Lord Ampthill. I should like, in the first place, to offer one humble word of defence for the clause which he so much dislikes—the clause which prohibits the use of war weapons. I believe it is so at the present time that recruits before joining the Army are generally trained by a system of Swedish drill. They are not trained, that is to say, with the help of war weapons; and I would venture to ask noble Lords who wish war weapons to be used in this way, what kind of war weapon they would wish in order to assist physical training? In order to develop the muscles generally there is no weapon of war in general use which can effectively be used with a system of Swedish drill. Scientific physical training is far more likely to develop the muscles and physique of children than any exercises with rifles or even with larger implements of war. I might even quote the noble Lord (Lord Ampthill) himself as an example. We are apt, I think, many of us to point to the noble Lord as perhaps the most. splendid specimen of physique in this House. May I put it to him that that splendid result was not attained by the use of the rifle, but more, I think, by the oar, with which he obtained so many successes at Henley in years gone by. I think, in these circumstances, it is not unfair to say that the use of. weapons of war is probably not the best method of obtaining a good physical result.
I now turn to one or two of the detailed criticisms upon some of the clauses of the Bill. The curriculum of the elementary school is already so full that we should very strongly object to that clause in the Bill which requires that as much as two hours a week should be devoted to this system of physical training. I think it is only fair to say, too, that that period which is devoted

181
to what is definitely called physical training at the present time does not comprehend he whole of the time which is spent in improving the physique of the children. In their play very often, also in the way in which they are made to stand and breathe while reading, and in matters of that kind, a great deal is done by the teachers to improve the physique of the children. although it is not given under the heading of physical training. Then I come to the examining Board. I think that that could hardly be undertaken by the Board of Education except at considerable expense. That is a subject to which I shall refer in a moment, but one which, after the debate we had yesterday in this House, I think ought to attract special attention from noble Lords, especially-in view of the somewhat airy way in which it was dealt with by the noble Viscount. We do not feel, either, that there is any need to create a special ad hoc committee for physical training under each local education authority in the way the noble Viscount suggests. There would not be very much work for such a committee to do, and we should very much object to an officer of the authority being an ex-officio member of such a committee. It would be much more to the point and bring a better result about if the larger local education authorities were to appoint paid organisers for the teaching of physical training within their area.
The other clause to which I think strong objection would be taken throughout the country is Clause 5, which certainly at the present time I do not think the country would adopt. By that clause all young people until they reach the age of sixteen years are to attend continuation schools for physical training at least two evenings in the week. Just think for one moment what the expense would be of bringing that about. You would have to hire rooms, you would require teachers, you would have to have lighting, you would require inspectors, and in an infinity of ways very large further expense would be thrown on the rates. The improvement which has taken place, or is, we hope, going to take place rapidly in the near future, in physical exercises will, we trust, go a very long way towards meeting what is the real object of this Bill. The Board hope to make examination in physical training compulsory upon all non-collegiate students.
The special question of expense, I think, bears not only with regard to these young
182
persons up to the age of sixteen, but also upon the further matter of the examination' of the various teachers. The Board, by the Bill of the noble Viscount, is expected to undertake the examination in physical training of the students in training colleges and also of non-collegiate students. In addition to that, of course, there are all the teachers who are now working in the schools. Of those there are 135,000, in addition to whom there are a large number of supplementary and unqualified teachers. Therefore it is not unreasonable to say that the Board would have to make arrangements for the examination in this matter of 150,000 teachers. I do not pretend that all those would wish or be able to undertake the work of physical training, but no doubt a large number of them would wish to get the additional qualification, and also the additional salary, which would be a further charge on the rates, and which is suggested by the noble Viscount in Clause 2, subsection (4). The general examination suggested by this Bill in order to be effective would naturally have to be somewhat thorough. An examination in practice could not take much less than ten minutes in connection with each individual, and with such a large number as the noble Viscount contemplates would pass through this examination, not only in point of time but also of numbers considerable expense must be incurred.
I have stated the objections to the Bill in its present form. It is impossible for me to advise your Lordships to give it a Second Reading on this occasion. I think what I have been able to say to the noble Viscount and what has been said by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Meath) proves sufficiently that the Board of Education are fully alive to the importance of this matter. They have taken a new start, and have already organised a much better system of physical training; and I venture to hope and to think that if the noble Viscount will suspend his judgment until there has been time to see the result of the very important new steps and new departures which have been taken by the Board, your Lordships will on a future occasion be better able and better qualified to deal with the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, every one who listened to the speech of the noble Viscount behind me must have realised that his heart is in his

183
work, and that he desires to arrest the deplorable physical degeneration disclosed by the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. With the object which my noble friend has in view I feel sure every one in your Lordships' House will agree. Speaking as one who has been at the head of the Board of Education, I do not hesitate to say that I view a great deal that is in this Bill with hearty sympathy. The noble Viscount expressed the hope that the Bill would be considered non-controversial and non-political. It is in that sense that I propose to deal with it in the few remarks that I shall make to-night. And the noble Viscount also invited criticisms in order that by that means he might realise the shortcomings in his Bill, and he enabled, by amending the Bill, to carry through some of its principles with which we all agree.
At the root of the whole matter is the question how far we can improve the present system of what used to be called when I was at the Board of Education physical exercises, but now termed physical training. My noble friend seems to think that if we could have a perfect system of physical training we might be able to improve the physique of those unfortunate children who abound in our great cities, and restore them to that state of vigour which we should all like to see. But I am afraid a good deal more than physical exercises would be required to bring about this happy state of affairs. I think the children to whom the noble Viscount alluded undoubtedly owe their unhealthy condition to other circumstances than the absence of physical exercises. They owe their condition perhaps to overcrowding, perhaps to want of proper nourishment, and perhaps also to the fact that the ordinary laws of health are not properly observed by their parents. Therefore if we are to effect this change which we all wish to see in the physique of the childen of this country, it can only be done by the Home Office, the Local Government Board, the Board of Education, and the various local authorities in all parts of the country acting together, and endeavouring, by combination, to cope with this state of affairs. While, therefore, I cordially sympathise with the object my noble friend has in view, I hardly think that physical exercises alone would have the effect which he desires.
There are one or two provisions in the Bill as it stands which I think it would be some-
184
what difficult to carry out. My noble friend proposes to make physical drill compulsory in all elementary schools. There is a certain amount of difficulty about that. The Board of Education naturally are, in the first instance, responsible for the subjects which are taught in schools—of course to a certain extent in conjunction with the local authorities; but those subjects are always put before the country in the shape of the Code which is published annually. It seems to me that it would be an entire innovation to select one subject, and one subject only, and make that a matter of legislative enactment, leaving all the other subjects as they are now- at the disposal of the Board of Education through their Code. I mention that because I think that an innovation of that kind ought to be seriously considered before it is passed into law. If once a question is made the subject of legislative enactment away from the Code, it is impossible to say how many other questions might not be brought forward for similar treatment. I remember that when' I was President of the Board of Education I received important deputations on the subject of hygiene. It might be said that hygiene ought to be dealt with by legislative enactment if you so deal with the question of physical exercises. Therefore on these grounds I think it would be dangerous to carry this Bill as it stands, making such a radical change in the system which up to now has worked very satisfactorily.
There is certainly a good deal to be said in favour of a system of physical training. I confess I heard with a certain amount of regret the criticisms of the noble Viscount with regard to the physical training given at the present moment in the elementary schools. If the Board of Education had disregarded the subject. of physical exercises, then there would have been a good deal of justification for the arguments he put forward. But I venture to say that the Board of Education have never disregarded this question. The subject of physical training was brought very prominently forward by a Commission appointed by the late Duke of Devonshire to consider the whole question of physical deterioration, and it was shortly after that Commission reported that I had the honour of being Minister of Education. I can certainly say that no Minister ever went to the Board of Education more keenly alive than I was to the advantages to be derived from physical exercises. In my own schools in

185
thickly-populated districts I have always taken a great interest in this subject, and therefore it came to me as a labour of love when I assumed office.
As the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Meath, has informed your Lordships, we took the matter in hand at. once. The Government felt very strongly on the question. and the War Office rendered us great assistance in placing at. our disposal Colonel (now. I am glad to say, Sir Malcolm) Fox, an expert in teaching the whole system of physical exercises. I realised when I went to the Board of Education that what the teachers required was to be themselves taught how to give this instruction. I visited many schools after I was at the Board of Education, and saw that the teachers did not themselves know how to teach. I saw, too, how the children suffered in consequence. But on visiting those schools at. the termination of my tenure of office I observed a great difference; and my noble friend Lord Meath has stated that he, too, saw the same satisfactory results. Therefore I felt a little hurt when the noble Viscount. stated that the teachers could not teach, and that as a result the condition of the children was very unsatisfactory in this regard. am not in a position to express any opinion as to how the system is carried on at the present time, but I gather from the Reports that the Board of Education are carrying on physical training with the same vigour that obtained when I was Minister for Education. Indeed, I understand they have done more. In those days this movement was in its infancy and we had only one inspector. I understand that there are now four inspectors who go about the country carrying out the policy which was inaugurated by Colonel Fox—that of instructing the teachers how to give physical training.; and I understand that in the training colleges physical training is compulsory. Although physical training is not legally compulsory at the present moment in the elementary schools, still under the policy carried out by us and continued by the present Government it is being given and has achieved good results.
My noble friend behind me also desires that there should be compulsory physical training at the continuation classes. I think myself that if that were possible to be done, it would have a very excellent effect. I have been told by young soldiers that in the three years or so between leaving the
186
elementary schools and joining their regiments as recruits they have lost all the knowledge obtained while at the elementary school. Therefore it does seem to me an unfortunate state of affairs, seeing that we spend millions a year on the education of the children in the elementary schools, that the benefit of that education should be entirely lost in many cases in those intervening years. Now arises the question as to how that difficulty is to be met. My noble friend's proposal goes a long way towards meeting it. At the same time we have to consider the difficulty of those who feel that they require the services of these boys or young men in the employment in which they are engaged. Still, I think we ought to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion not to allow the wastage of this vast sum of money owing to the lack of educational training of some sort during these particular years of a boy's life. But if this Bill is read a second time, my noble friend will have to insert in the second part of it some carefully worded exemptions. At the present time there are a great number of boys who have left school but who would be unable to take advantage of these particular physical exercises.
We recently formed the Boy Scouts, a most admirable organisation, calculated to do a great work in the future, and these boys, in addition to receiving discipline, are given very healthy recreation. There are other similar organisations, and in connection with all these bodies there are gymnasia. You have also many athletic organisations, and I should be sorry, by compelling these boys to attend continuation schools for this training, to do anything to injure these organisations. We must remember that a good many of these boys when they go to work have not much time for recreation, and to take a boy whose heart is in the Roy Scouts or in athletics and compel him for two nights in the week to attend compulsory physical training would not do that boy any good, for his heart would be away from this work and lie would look with disfavour upon it; it would not do him that good which it would do if he had no other means of exercise. That is a point which my noble friend ought to carefully consider.
But I do think something ought to be done to prevent boys from the age of fourteen to eighteen losing the advantages they have derived at the elementary school. I

187
hope that in what I have said my noble friend will not think I have thrown any cold water on his scheme. The principle of his Bill has my hearty sympathy; but I did think it was my duty, having had the advantage of being Minister for Education for four years, to bring forward, I hope in a modest manner, the experience I derived during that time. In all the circumstances, I hope your Lordships will see your way to give the Bill a Second Reading, on the understanding that considerable alterations will be made in it when it reaches the Committee stage.
LORD BARNARD: My Lords, this Bill embodies one principle which has not been referred to in the course of the debate, and which, I think, deserves the consideration of your Lordships before the Question is put whether the Bill should be read a second time. The right rev. Prelate opposite stated that if for only one reason—namely, the provisions in Clause 5—he is prepared to support this Bill. It is the provision in subsection (2) of that clause which raises great doubt. in my mind whether the Bill should be read a second time. If the Bill were to pass in its present form, every naughty boy or naughty girl who did not attend the compulsory training on two evenings a week would practically be liable to be treated more or less as a. criminal and haled before a Court of summary jurisdiction and fined; and not only the young person, but even the parent, and, perhaps, the employer, might be involved in a like liability. The tendency to create offences of this kind at the present day requires very serious consideration, and unless my noble friend who has introduced the Bill can give me some assurance that this provision in it will be reconsidered at a future stage I shall feel bound to vote against it, for, as I have said, I am entirely opposed to provisions which create new criminal offences without serious cause.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, may I most respectfully, as one who came down to the House to listen to the discussion and to vote upon the merits, ask my noble friend to consider the advisability of postponing the Bill. I find myself in an extremely difficult position. I am entirely in favour, as I think all your Lordships are, of the general principles of the Bill, but I have been so much impressed by the criticisms from both sides of the House that I think the noble Viscount would be
188
wise to postpone its further consideration. I think the publicity which he has given to the question to-day, and the general approval he has obtained of the principles which he desires to see carried out, are a great advance on which he may congratulate himself, and if he were to take back the Bill for reconsideration on the points raised he would not lose anything, because obviously exigencies of time make it exceedingly improbable that the Bill can be carried into law this year, and lie might, at an early period next session, reintroduce the Bill with the criticisms met to some degree.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I rise to say a word in support of the appeal which has just been addressed to the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill. The object of the Bill is, of course, as has so often been said, one with which we entirely sympathise, and I need not say that we should not think of dividing the House against the Second Reading. But., at the same time, when the Bill is analysed, as it has been partly analysed this afternoon, there appear to be such a number of disputable points in it and it seems to raise so many difficulties of administration that I confess I agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken in believing that Lord Hill, if he were to press the Second Reading to-day, might rather retard than advance the object he has in view. I quite agree with what was said by Lord Ridley that the ventilation which the subject has received in this debate is of advantage, and if the noble Viscount would agree to be content with this I think it would be the most satisfactory solution of this debate.
VISCOUNT HILL: My Lords, after the appeal which has been made to me by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and by my noble friend Lord Ridley, and after the many criticisms which have been passed upon this Bill, I will accept the suggestion and withdraw it. At the same time I think I can congratulate myself on having procured so many useful criticisms upon the Bill, for I foresaw that great difficulties would arise in certain cases with regard to administration and so forth. I ask leave to withdraw my Bill for the present, in order that these criticisms may be examined and carefully considered and

189
the Bill put into a shape in which it will, on some future occasion. be more favourably received by your Lordships.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn:
The Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL. CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have a little Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. It is a Bill which I do not think will take up much of your Lordships' time, and on which I hope and believe you will be practically unanimous. It provides compensation for tenants on whom notice to quit is served with a view to the use of their land for the provision of small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act which your Lordships were pleased to pass in 1908. This Bill is unopposed and has been agreed to by the Commons House of Parliament. As a matter of fact, it is a consequential Bill.
The result of the Act of 1908 up to date has been that 80,000 acres, or 125 square miles, of land have been secured for holdings for 0,000 applicants, 4,000 of whom are already on the ground. In the vast majority of eases I ant glad to be able to assure your Lordships that the land has been secured without any hardship being imposed on the sitting tenants, but I do not disguise the fact that there may have been a few cases in which loss, or at any rate inconvenience, may have been incurred, and this Bill provides, I hope, a practical remedy by granting compensation in such cases. This we propose to do without placing any charge whatever on the rates or on the landlords. The Bill is a simple one, and well drawn. There is no reference to any other legislation, and any man who runs can read it, and, what. is more, can understand it.
The first clause, which is perfectly intelligible, runs—
"Where a council, or a landlord at the request of a council, terminates a tenancy of land by notice to quit, with a view to the use of the land or any part thereof by the council for the provision of
190
small holdings, the tenant upon quitting shall be entitled to recover from the council compensation for the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting which the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection with the land."
It is also provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits. Under the Land Tenure Act the tenant has to give notice of his intention to claim within two months after the receipt of the notice to quit. Under this Bill the tenant whose land is required is better treated. Your Lordships will also see that differences are to be settled, in default of agreement, by a single arbitrator. That is following the lines of Section 13 of the Consolidated Lands Acts.
Clause 1 also gives the procedure that we recommend. The county council is to pay the compensation to the tenants but is repaid by the Board of Agriculture, and the money is found out of the Small Holdings Fund. I have no doubt that we shall get a good many applications for compensation. When there is money going about it is very natural that many people should try to get what they can. I remember that some years ago, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Balaclava Charge, a dinner was given to the survivors of the gallant Six Hundred, and between 400 and 500, military gentlemen were found under the hallucination that they had been at that memorable battle. They had to be weeded out, and I hope that we shall also be able to weed out any of those gentlemen connected with the agricultural industry who may be under the hallucination that they have been unfairly treated. I venture to think, and I hope, that cases of hardship, will really be few and far between.
There is a proviso in Clause 2 that no compensation shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before September 1, 1910. To-day is July 14. That would leave only six weeks, and the Bill is not through yet. Therefore I think your Lordships will probably be of opinion. that the time given is rather short, and I shall be prepared—and I think it would be only right to do so, as we want to act perfectly fairly and justly to agriculturists—to give a longer time than that now stated.

191
in the Bill. Clause 2 also makes the Bill retrospective. In such cases compensation will be paid direct by the Board of Agriculture, not through the county councils, and the amount is left, as I think your Lordships will agree it should be, to the discretion of the Board. It would be absolutely useless to try and hold an arbitration on a tenancy that had expired a year or eighteen months ago. Therefore I think your Lordships will agree that the proposal that the matter should be left to be decided by those who have the public duty to pay this compensation out of the public funds is a wise one. It is very easy to be liberal with other people's money, and I think the matter ought to be dealt with by those who are responsible to Parliament, so that if they make any mistakes they can be called over the coals.
I may be asked the very natural question why no provision is made in the Bill for compensation where tenancies are brought to an end under compulsory orders. The county councils have been obliged to use their compulsory powers in connection with something like 1,200 acres. I may be asked why, in these circumstances, the same indulgence is not to be given to those tenant farmers on whom compulsory orders have been issued. The answer to that is that in those cases the tenant can obtain full compensation under the Lands Clauses Acts, and therefore there is no reason to protect him in this Bill. That is all I have to say as regards this little Bill. I hope your Lordships will look as favourably upon it as the House of Commons did. It may be a very small Bill, but it perfects a work which will not only add to the social, moral, and physical welfare of the people at large, but will redound to the credit of the Parliament which passed it into law. I beg to move.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a2014;(l Carrington)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think there would have been some disappointment among the members of your Lordships' House, at any rate on this side, if we had not heard from the noble Earl opposite to-night a reiteration of the remarkable figures he has quoted on previous occasions of
192
the extension of small holdings in this country. But I rise for the purpose of congratulating the noble Earl on having brought in this Bill, because, as he is perfectly well aware, for it has been pointed out both in this House and in the other, there has been a great feeling of soreness left in the minds of tenant farmers in the country on account of land being taken away from them compulsorily, great damage being done to the remainder of their holding, and no provision being made for compensating them for the damage done. The noble Earl has now remedied that, and he has done it out of the source which I venture to think is the right and proper one — namely, the Imperial Exchequer—and not the rates which are levied by county councils.
I was very glad to hear that the noble Earl had been impressed by the representations made to him that September 1 is rather short notice for those who may wish to proffer a claim where land has been taken from them before the commencement of the Act. I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention also to another point in connection with that clause, and that is that the "claim" must be sent in. I believe that by "claim" is meant the whole of the details of what the dispossessed tenant may consider to be the amount which ought to be paid to him as compensation, and I should like the noble Earl to consider, if he will, whether it would not be possible to substitute for the word "claim" the words "notice of claim." Whatever date may be fixed it should not be the claim that should be sent in by that time, but notice should be given to the Board of Agriculture that the dispossessed tenant intends to make the claim, and then a time should be stated in which the claim should be sent in.
I have only one other observation to make, and that is to congratulate the noble Earl on making Clause 2 retrospective. I venture to hope that it will not be without some effect on the noble Earl himself, because we remember that some time ago the noble Earl entertained the House by telling us how he went down to a farmers' ordinary and made the observation to them, which was common property at the time, that a General Election was pending, and he added that he did not wish that they should go to that General Election

193
with a bad taste in their mouth. So the noble Earl produced a fifty pound note out of his pocket, which, with that generosity which always characterises him, he gave to the unfortunate tenant farmer concerned. As this Bill is to be retrospective, I hope that the noble Earl will make some representation to that gentleman and get his fifty pound note back, because it is clear that the tenant will get the £50 out of His Majesty's Government, and the end of it will be, if the noble Earl does not get his money back, that this man will have the £50 from the Treasury and also the £50 from the noble Earl. I congratulate the noble Earl on the introduction of this Bill, and sincerely hope that your Lordships will pass it into law without further delay.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on. Tuesday next.

VATERSAY.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the recent Report of the Congested Districts Board—
Appendix X., page 8.
Vatersay.
1. "Net general expenditure" £1,188 7s. 2d. Of what items this sum is composed.
2. "Loss on sheep stock, &c." £3,403 11s. 1d. How much of this was loss on sheep stock.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the condition of the western islands of Scotland is serious, and is becoming more serious every year, indeed I may say almost every month, and it may be necessary to call your Lordships' attention to the whole subject at no distant date. But in the meantime, and as a preliminary, I think it is very desirable that we should understand the accounts which have been presented to us in the recent Report of the Congested Districts Board. There are several items which I have been unable to understand, and there are other noble Lords who have encountered the same difficulty. Therefore I propose, in the first place, to take the case of the Island of Vatersay and the Report which has been made upon it.
Appendix X, page 8, gives the amounts which have been expended. There is one item, that of "Net general expenditure," which I do not understand. Apparently the land was purchased for £6,000 or a little more; but why has it been necessary to incur a general expenditure of £1,188 upon it? By the aid of this and other expenditure the rent of Vatersay is reduced from £350, which it paid as a farm, to £180 which the noble Lord proposes it should be rented at by the crofters in future. In the second place, there is an item, which your Lordships will see is called "Loss on sheep stock, & c.," of £3,403 11s. ld. I hope that the "etcetera" is a very large sum and that it is larger than the loss on sheep stock, because the number of sheep which were taken over was not really large, and if £3,403, or anything approaching that sum, was lost upon sheep stock, then I do not think this country will be able to go on sheep farming at the same ratio. It is quite clear that you could not lose such a sum as £3,403 on a comparatively insignificant number of sheep, and therefore there must be some item or items of a considerable amount of which the word "etcetera" does not give us a very clear understanding. I wish to ask these two Questions.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, the details of the sum of £1,188 7s. 2d. under the heading of "Net general expenditure" are as follow: Law charges and clerk to the reference, £594 19s. 6d.; arbiters' fees, £188 17s. 6d.; stipend and Income Tax, £20 12s. 5d.; expenses in connection with keeping and the sale of the sheep stock, £372 6s. 0d.; sundry small items, £11 11s. 9d., making a total of £1,188 7s. 2d. The noble Earl next asks for information in regard to the "Loss on sheep stock, & c.," which is put at a sum of £3,403 11s. ld. The loss attributable to sheep stock is approximately £1,800, of which sum, however, from information before me, I think £175 represents the half year's rent from Whitsunday, 1908, making the sum attributable to loss from sheep stock, £1,625.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think the noble Lord stated that some portion of this "net general expenditure" was in connection with sheep stock. Why should anything which refers to sheep

195
be put down as "net general expenditure?"
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl, I think, is confusing his two Questions.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, I was taking your answer. I understood you, in giving the items, to say that in one of the items there was a sum in connection with sheep.
LORD PENTLAND: The item which I gave as part of the total sum mentioned in the first of the noble Earl's Questions was the item of £372 6s. 0d., which represents expenses in connection with the sale of the sheep stock and therefore not attributable correctly to loss on sheep stock. They were expenses connected with the sale.
LORD SALTOUN: Of the £3,403 loss on sheep stock, & c., the noble Lord has accounted for £1,800, £175 of which represents rent, but he has not given any statement of what has been done with the rest.
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl, in his Question, asked how much of this sum was loss on sheep stock, and I thought it better and simpler to give the exact information asked for. If any other information is required, I will willingly give it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN then rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland the second series of Questions standing in his name—viz.:

1. How many sheep were paid for by the Congested Districts Board as being on Vatersay Farm at Whitsunday, 1908; and what sum was paid for them.

2. How many sheep have since been sold; and what sum has been received for them.

3. Have the sheep on the Island of Sandray been sold, or agreed to be sold, to the Vatersay crofters; and, if so, on what terms.

4. Does the Congested District Board now own any sheep on the Old Vatersay Farm.

5. "What has been the total loss of the Board in connection with sheep in Vatersay, including the costs of the arbitration, all sums paid to the late tenant, and the legal and other costs incurred by the Board.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland no specific account is given of what has happened owing to this experiment in sheep farming, and therefore I have put down these Questions, which speak for themselves. The Report itself covers the period up to March 31. It is stated in the Report that the Island of Sandray has been assigned as grazing to the townships mentioned. It certainly was not assigned in the period embraced by the Report. I naturally concluded, from reading the Report, that the arrangements had been made and completed with the cottars; but as a matter of fact there was, I understand, a dispute between the Board and the crofters with regard to these sheep. The crofters wished to take them over, but the Board did not wish to give them over, and unless 1 am misinformed the dispute had not terminated by the first week in May, when the island was still in possession of the Board, and I do not know whether it is over now. I presume it is, and therefore I wish to ask whether the sheep on that island have been sold or agreed to be sold to the Vatersay crofters, and, if so, on what terms.
LORD PENTLAND: The answer to Question 1 is 2,333, and the sum paid fur them was £3,158 14s. 5d. The answer to Question 2 is 2,378, including lambs, and the sum received for them was £1,863 10s. 3d. The reply to Question 3 is, Yes, to the crofters. They have been sold approximately at market prices, one-third of the price being paid down and the remainder in instalments of £1 per share per annum. The answer to Question 4 is, No. As to Question 5, it is difficult to separate the cost of arbitration in connection with sheep from that referable to other heads, but with that qualification I am able to say that the loss on dealings in sheep, as stated in reply to the former Questions, is approximately £1,800, including the half year's rent I mentioned, while the cost of arbiters and other legal charges amounts to £495.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I hold in my hand a copy of the former account between the Board and the tenant, and while I agree with the noble Lord with regard to the figure of £3,158, yet in my account the sheep paid for were only 1,302.
LORD PENTLAND: I shall be glad to look into that. This is the information that has been supplied to me, and I am inclined to think it is correct. But I will not contradict the noble Lord without further information.

KILMUIR.
LORD CLINTON LORD CLINTON rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the Congested District Board's Report—
Appendix X., page 9.
Kilmuir.

1. How much of the item. £27,628 7s. 2d. represents sheep stock.

2. Has the stock been sold to the settlers, and at what price.

3. Can the loss on stock be calculated now.

4. How much of the item £31,123 17s. 8d. represents arrears of rent.

5. Works, repairs, & c., £8,825 17s. 3d. Does the increase over last year represent a normal expenditure on repairs.

6. Rents received, £46,187. How much of this sum represents rents and how much sinking fund. Is any repayment for sheep stock included.

7. Is any interest chargeable and paid upon the capital expended.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Questions I have on the Paper are somewhat similar to those asked by my noble friend Lord Camperdown, but they refer to the Kilmuir estate. There are certain items with regard to sheep that I am anxious to inquire about. The first item I wish to draw attention to is that of £27,628 7s. 2d. I want to know how much of that item represents sheep stock. It is certain that there has been a loss, and I should like to know the amount. In connection with almost every other estate the loss is shown, but there is no indication of the loss here. It is lumped in with other sums. The payments profess to be the net payments, and probably the price received for the sheep when sold may in this figure be deducted from the amount which the sheep cost. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell me what the price given for the sheep was and what they were sold for, so that. we may calculate the loss.
The figure of £31,123 17s. 8d. in my Question appears to be an increase of £4,000 since the last account. I ask in
198
my Question how much of this item represents arrears of rent. I have since found out that the figure is given in the account. It appears that in March, 1910, the arrears on this estate were £3,447, and if the noble Lord has the information with him I should be glad if he would let us know on what rental those arrears have arisen. In this particular Report. there is nothing to show what the rental of that estate is, but by going back to the Report of the year before last I see it stated that the rental of the estate is £1,577. If that figure is correct, it appears that although this estate has only been in possession of the Board for some four or five years the arrears have now accumulated to a sum equal to two years rental. That is, of course, a serious state of things, and I know that the Board regard the whole question of arrears in the western islands as a serious one, because they state in their Reports for the last two years—
"In a scheme of State-aided creation of new holdings it is manifestly of the highest importance that the settlers should make punctual payment of the sums due by them. We regret to say that in the case of several estates the settlers, with some exceptions, are considerably in arrear. We thought it our duty to intimate that unless there was an immediate improvement in this respect, steps would be taken to enforce payment or to foreclose. The result of this notice has not been satisfactory, and we have had to take proceedings against certain selected defaulters who we have reason to believe could have met their obligations in a more satisfactory manner than thay have done."
That statement appears word for word in both Reports, and I should be glad if the noble Lord could give information as to what the effect of taking proceedings against these selected defaulters has been, and whether, if they have not been successful, further steps are proposed to be taken.
The next item, "Works, repairs, & c., £8,825 17s. 3d.," represents an increase of £4,000 over last year. I see in Appendix XI of the Report that the works carried out on this estate have amounted during the last year to £1,200, which leaves a balance of £2,800 for repairs, & c. I ask the noble Lord whether that represents a normal expenditure on repairs. The cost of the repairs is about one and a-half years rental, and if that is to be the normal expenditure on repairs and upkeep it seems a very large one. An item on the credit side of the Report to which I wish to call attention is a sum of £46,187, which is entered as a deduction from the total

199
expenditure. That includes "rents, & c." The word "etcetera" appears in almost every entry in this Report. I should like to know what it includes besides rent. It possibly includes some repayment for sheep stock, although that would probably come in better as a deduction from the sum stated as the valuation of the stock. It may include interest on the expenditure, and it may also include annuities and repayment of loans if anything has been paid towards that purpose.
But what I really complain of is that annual income and possibly capital income should be all lumped together and used as a set off towards the total expenditure on the estate. The expenditure consists of the purchase price of the Kilmuir estate, this sum for sheep stock, of which we have spoken, and various other things. These other items may be loans, or they may be ordinary upkeep, or possible free gifts; but what I want to bring before the noble Lord's notice is that if these are free gifts, as I anticipate a good many of them are, it is surely misleading to infer that they are paid off, because there can be very little necessity to pay off free gifts at all. If, on the other hand, they are loans, then it seems to me it is improper accounting to suggest that these loans are being repaid by sums which really are entirely on account of income. I suppose it is obvious that all payments on account of capital, other, of course, than free gifts, do require to show something in the way either of rent if it is a purchase price, or interest if it is a loan, before any part of the revenue can be allocated for capital purposes; and it seems to me really incorrect that you should make it appear in your accounts that your capital liabilities are being annually reduced by large sums when in reality a large portion of your receipts are obviously receipts on account of income, and ought not to be paid in reduction of capital. I think the system adopted might be made more clear to the ordinary observer.
I believe an alteration in this method of accounting would be very easy, and I ask the noble Lord to consider whether he cannot take into his consideration whether some other method cannot be adopted to make these accounts more clear. A large number of people are interested in this large experiment in the State management and State ownership of land. It is obvious
200
that in the western islands we are up against a problem which is of an entirely uneconomic nature. At the same time I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that we should be put into possession of facts so that we can see how uneconomic that problem has become, and be able to judge whether the vast expenditure now going on there does leave behind it benefits to the district and the crofters anything like commensurate with this large outlay of money.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord may rest assured that the Government are perfectly willing and ready to afford all the information in their possession with regard to these matters. I have to make two observations before I answer the Questions. But I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me if, having been told by the noble Earl who put the first series of Questions that it is his intention to raise this subject as a whole for discussion in your Lordships' House at an early date, I reserve any discussion of the subject, so far as I am concerned, till I know exactly the purposes and wishes of noble Lords in regard to it. It seems to me very desirable that we should first get at the facts, and having got at the facts impartially and without controversy perhaps we shall be more able to discuss them.
As the noble Lord has said, the system of keeping these accounts may possibly be peculiar. I am not prepared to say that I have not found considerable difficulty, in the wording of the noble Lord's Questions, at arriving at his meaning, so that possibly he may, in the same way, have found some difficulty in understanding the figures which are put before him. These Questions were put down on Thursday or Friday of last week. Therefore I have had considerable notice, and I have made every effort to obtain the information which the noble Lord desires. But at this time of the year the staff of the Board is employed in different parts of Scotland, and I have not yet got the full information for which the noble Lord asks under some of these heads. I can only say that I shall be very glad to add to it at his instance if he so desires. I ought also to make this general observation, that this estate of Kilmuir can hardly be judged by the ordinary canons. It was not purchased as a w hole and then handed over to tenants as a whole. It was purchased by the

201
Government of the day, I think in the year 1901 or 1902.
LORD BALFOUR OF HURLER: No; I was not responsible.
LORD PENTLAND: I forget the year; but it was purchased by the Government some time ago, and the condition of the estate, which was one of some congestion and in parts one of considerable confusion, required a thorough rearrangement of the razing belonging to the different tenants on the estate. It consisted of farms and of crofter townships. Same of these farms have been broken up to make new settlements of crofters, and a wholesale rearrangement of the pasture and the common grazing of these townships, which could only be carried out gradually and slowly, was necessary. Thus it is that we cannot give totals of some of the items in which the noble Lord is interested.
The answer to Question 1 is £24,773 Os. 2½ d. The answer to Question 2 is that most of the stock was sold at public sales. As to these, particulars are, I believe, obtainable, but I have nut got them before me to-day. In respect of such stock as was sold to the tenants I have this information: 1.630 sheep have been sold at a value of £1,529 to tenants. There is also a further number—a smaller number—of which I have not got the details and in regard to which the arrangements for sale ate not yet completed. It follows that the answer to Question 3 is that I am unable at the present moment to give the total loss on sheep stock, for it cannot be calculated. As to Question 4, the information which I have in regard to the arrears is contained in the published Report. I have no further information with regard to those arrears. I had thought that what the noble Lord wished to know was what arrears there were on the estate when it was purchased—that is to say, what debt we took over when we purchased the estate. That figure is£1773
LORD CLINTON: Is that included in the item of £31,123?
LORD PENTLAND: Part of it only. Part of it has been written off, I think, owing to arrangements made between the different townships. But I should not like to be positive on that point. In regard to arrears, the noble Lord will see there is a able of figures which shows the position of
202
the arrears at the present time. Steps are being taken in accordance with the statement contained in the Report, and I shall be very glad, on a future occasion, to state how the matter stands. In reply to Question 5, on my present information the increase over last year does represent a normal expenditure on repairs. The noble Earl made a reference to the Appendix in the Report. The heading there is "Works" and therefore when I give the noble Lord the figure of the repairs for which he asks in his Question, which is £350, it does not clash necessarily with the information he has taken out of the Report. I think light can be thrown on that by my further answers.
In Question 6 the noble Lord asks how much of the sum mentioned represents rents and how much sinking fund. There is no sinking fund included, but the sum does include rents and sheep stock. At this moment I am not able to give the figures for each of those two separate heads, Finally, the noble Lord asks whether any interest is chargeable and paid upon the capital expended. Loans for buildings, for which the noble Lord will see a sum of £190 included in the Appendix, have recently been given, but the fixed time for the beginning of the repayment has not yet arrived. When it does arrive interest will be payable on those loans in regard to roads and fencing, which are made for the general improvement of the estate; and this, I think, comes under the criticism of free gifts which the noble Lord mentioned. On outlay for those purposes no interest is charged to the tenants, and in regard to the purchase price it also ought to be noted that the rents are crofting rents; the tenants are crofters, and therefore no element of interest, as I understand it, arises. I have given the noble Lord all the in formation I have at the present moment; but, as I have said, I shall be very glad to supplement it later at the noble Lord's instance.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I ask the noble Lord a question with regard to his answer to Question 6? The noble Lord is asked how much of the sum of £46,187 represents rents and how much sinking fund. He says rents are included, but he cannot say how much of that sum is repayment for sheep stock. This is rather unfortunate, because we do not know how to divide the two sums. Observe this, that whatever has been paid in the

203
form of rent is deducted from the capital outlay as if it were a repayment of capital. Surely that. is bad accounting. You have spent a sum of £140,000, you say, and you receive, we will say, £5,000 in rent. Then you put down that as if it is repayment of capital, but surely there ought to be some interest in the form of rent on an expenditure of £140,000. At this rate you have merely to go on receiving rent long enough to extinguish your capital. Surley that, on the face of it, must be wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rise only in order to express my hope that the Secretary for Scotland will endeavour to arrange that these accounts, if further accounts of the same kind are to be presented, shall be presented to us in a somewhat more intelligible form than that. which they assume in this Blue-book. I quite admit the intricacy and difficulty of the subject, but I do venture to say that if in some cases, at all events, it had been desired to obscure the real significance of the figures that operation could not have been more successfully achieved. The grouping is an unusual grouping—a grouping with which, I venture to say, no one who is in the habit of studying State accounts is at all familiar. and the constant addition of that comprehensive little symbol "& c." renders them more confusing still. You have in the Return relating to Vatersay a heading "Net general expenditure," which, as the noble Lord admitted, contains a considerable sum on account of loss on sheep stock, although the very next item is a separate one for loss on sheep stock. I venture to think that if your Lordships were to fill up some of those Returns which many of us are receiving from the Somerset House authorities at this time in an equally perplexing and ambiguous manner, we should be emphatically reminded that we were not performing the duties of citizenship as they should be performed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to make one suggestion. Unlike some of my noble friends on this side of the House, I have been through the mill of making this very Report in earlier days when it was not so large and comprehensive, and the suggestion I want to make touches the real point of whether these experiments are going to be successful or not. I was responsible for the purchase and for the divisions of three only of the groups of holdings mentioned in this Report—Syre,
204
Barra, and Sollas and Grenitote. I should like to know how they are going on at the present time. Are the arrears accumulating? Because that is, to my mind, the crucial point in judging whether this policy is going to be successful or not.
On such items as sheep valuation, those connected with Scotland knowing the difficulties must expect that there will he a less on taking over sheep stock and re-selling it in these days. There must be capital expenditure on new buildings; there must be grants for roads and bridges, and so on. What I think is of importance is that we should know, first of all, what the amounts of those are in the case of each of the estates, and we must regard that as sunk money for the purpose of giving the experiment a fair chance. I am most anxious to see the schedule of payments by those who are now holding. They enter into obligations to pay so much in rent, so much in sinking fund, and so much for return on their buildings, and I would like to see how these people are getting on. Are they year by year accumulating arrears, or are they, taking one year with another, meeting their obligations? There is no information in these documents which on a comprehensive scale shows what these tenants are doing.
Take the case of Syre, the individual holdings of which are larger than any other. It is in one of the most favourable districts. It was an estate bought from the Duke of Sutherland, and it was distributed into somewhat larger holdings than the others. That has been going on now for ten or eleven years, and it would be useful if we could see a schedule for each year of what these individual tenants have done. The difficulty of the circumstance is this, that there may be some successful and some may fail. There may be difficulties with regard to individuals which have to be carefully considered. I never would be desirous of pressing a man unduly if there had been disease in his stock, or if he had had a bad year through any particular cause. But if it be the case that over all the estates, one year with another, the practice has grown up of arrears accumulating and no steps being taken, you are going on a course which cannot be justified from public policy, for the essential thing is that these people should be taught that if they enter into obligations they must be made to pay or to suffer. If you do not do that, you put a premium on recalcitrancy, and you eventually sap the

205
independence of these people and the possibility of the experiment being successful. Therefore I should like to see an amended account taking a few of the older estates, and I think we ought to have a progressive account with individual names, or at any rate individual holdings ought to be capable of being identified, to see what proportion of these people are meeting their obligations and what proportion are not.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, I frankly say that I agree entirely with what has fallen from the noble Lord. What. he has said correctly describes the policy of the Board in regard, not only to the tenants who have arrears, but to the much larger majority of the tenants who have no arrears. I have not got the details of the various estates with me on this occasion, or I would willingly give the information. There are 500 tenants on one estate, and there are ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty on other estates. I did not know the information would be sought for, and if t here had been a hint in the Questions on the Paper that a general discussion was invited I should have endeavoured to be ready to meet it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: There has been no general discussion.
LORD PENTLAND: No; the noble Earl prefers that a general discussion should be avoided. It is true that this settlement does require mercy, and the consideration which Lord Balfour suggests should be shown to enable these people to get over the first difficulties of bringing ground under cultivation in some cases and of making a home for themselves. But after that, in the case of men who arc really not doing their best to meet their obligations, your Lordships may be sure that the policy of the Board is not to allow to occur what the noble Lord fears—namely, a leniency which would sap that independence and self-reliance which the Government should encourage in these men.
May I say one word in respectful protest of the intervention of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in this matter? He has lent the weight of his great authority to practically a censure on my Department. He has complained of the form in which the accounts have been presented to Parliament, and he has, as I say, lent the
206
weight of his authority to criticisms which, with the greatest respect, I think have really not been deserved. These accounts, as the noble Marquess will see if he examines the Return, do not profess to be complete accounts. They are simply a brief summary of expenditure under each property which is administered by the Board. They have never professed to be complete accounts and to put before Parliament the 'details of management, profit and loss, capital and current account, and so forth. The form of the accounts has not been altered by me since I have been responsible for the Department. It has remained the same from the inception, and has not been questioned, I think, until to-day. I venture mildly to protest against the criticism of the noble Marquess for this further reason, that he seemed to imply that I wished to shelter—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think I did.
LORD PENTLAND: I am quite sure it is the last thing the noble Marquess meant, but he suggested that I was not willing to give the fullest information to your Lordships in this matter. He suggested that the form of the accounts was not calculated to make obvious all the information which it was desirable that Parliament should have. I can assure him that any representations which come from any quarter of this House desiring an amendment of the form of the accounts or fuller information concerning them will be welcomed. It is all to the good that your Lordships should take an interest, if I may say so, in what is going on in Scotland in this matter, and there will be no one more ready than myself to meet criticism, however severe.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I only wish to say that I had no idea of censuring the Department presided over by the noble Lord, and I do not think I used the particular expression which lie attributed to me. My friends behind me confirm that view. But, as a matter of fact, these accounts did come before the House in a shape which fairly puzzled some extremely businesslike and acute critics who sit behind me, and I ventured to express my regret that they should not be presented in a form more intelligible. That was the beginning and end of my criticism.

THE BREEDING OF LIGHT HORSES.
LORD WYNFORD: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give any information as to the amount of the grant that may be expected from the Development Fund for the purpose of encouraging the breeding of light horses. I hardly expect that the noble Earl will be able to give this information, but I wish to bring the matter forward as I consider it one of urgency. Towards the end of last year the Hunters Improvement Society—this society and the Hackney Society are the two most influential societies which interest themselves in horse-breeding in this country—appointed a very strong committee, who spent a lot of time and went very carefully into the question of horse-breeding with a view of bringing out some scheme. In the late spring or early summer of this year they presented a report to the council, who ordered if to be printed, and I think a copy of that report was sent to each of your Lordships. I do not intend now to go into the merits of that scheme, beyond saying that I believe it is accepted on all hands as being an excellent and practical one. The noble Earl has told us that he also has a scheme ready, and I can only hope that his scheme, if not identical in detail with that of the Hunters Improvement Society, is at all events on the same lines. But whatever scheme is going to be put into operation, unless something is done very soon the whole of a valuable year will be wasted. Any scheme which includes the registration and examination of stallions, the registration and possible purchase of brood mares, in addition also to the appointment of committees, will take a long time to bring into operation, and it is essential, if it is to be brought into operation this year, that something should be done without delay. The noble Earl will probably tell me that he can do nothing himself, and that he is entirely in the hands of the Development Commissioners. I believe the Development Commissioners, who were appointed in April last, have not yet held a meeting. I do not know if the reason for this is that the Vice-Chairman, Sir Francis Hopwood, cannot be spared from his duties at the Colonial Office. However that may be, I am anxious to point out the necessity of getting some scheme into operation unless another year is to be wasted. I trust that if the noble Earl cannot answer my Question he will at least be able to
208
inform your Lordships that something is going to be done in this matter at an early date, and I hope he will use his influence in that direction.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I need hardly assure the noble Lord opposite that the Board of Agriculture are quite as anxious to bring this matter to a head as he is himself. I am also pleased to think that the able recommendation of the Hunters Improvement Society runs very much on all fours with the scheme that the Board of Agriculture have in view, and which I had the honour some time ago of explaining to your Lordships. I think we can congratulate ourselves that we have the entire sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There never was a Chancellor of the Exchequer in my recollection who was more sympathetic with the claims of agriculture. He has for the first time given us a grant of a quarter of a million towards the claims of the industry that I have the honour to represent. The Board are in close communication with the Development Commissioners, and I hope that it will not be very long before we shall come to some practical and satisfactory result. At the same time 1 think the noble Lord opposite will agree with me that it would be hardly fair on the Treasury or on the Development Commissioners that I should state at this moment what the exact sum is that I have asked the Development Commissioners for. I hope he will be satisfied with this answer, and with the assurance that nothing will be left undone so far as my Department is concerned to bring the horse supply of the country to a satisfactory position.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, we have always recognised the anxiety of the noble Earl to do something in this important matter, but I think we really have shown the patience of saints and it is time we began to ask for a little more definite progress. The noble Earl will, I am sure, remember that this matter crystallised at a meeting which he called at the Board of Agriculture at the beginning of 1906, when we were definitely asked to produce a scheme for the Government to see. That scheme has been produced, and the Government told us last year that they, too, had a scheme. I cannot help expressing my disappointment that the noble Earl the President of the Board

209
has not been able to answer the Question of my noble friend behind me, because, after all, this matter is urgent, and obviously it is desirable that some start should be made this summer. We who know the details of the Hunters Improvement Society's scheme know it to be an excellent one. The noble Earl tells us that in principle his scheme agrees with the scheme of the Hunters Improvement Society. I confess 1 should not have thought it unreasonable to ask that we should know at once the definite sum the Government propose to give to this definite service. If the noble Earl says he cannot give it, we cannot press for it; but I do seriously hope that progress may be made in the very early future, not progress in obtaining the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which we know we have got, but progress in seeing the colour of his money. I hope that at any rate before the adjournment for the recess the noble Earl may be able to tell us what sum may be expected for this import ant service.

SANDRAY.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether all the transactions referred to in the Report of the Congested Districts Board as completed were completed within the period covered by the Report, viz., before 31st March, 1910. I may say that I refer specially to the Island of Sandray.
LORD PENTLAND: So far as I am aware, that is so. I am sorry I did not know that the noble Lord referred specially to the Island of Sandray. If I had known that, I would have inquired and made certain on that point.. But so far as I am aware the Report carries the narrative down to March 31.
LORD SALTOUN: Perhaps the noble Lord will look into the point as regards the Island of Sandray.
LORD PENTLAND: I will.

THE TERRITORIAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE THE EARL OF STRADBROKE rose to ask the Under-Secretary for War "whether be can give the date at which guns will be supplied to the Territorial Field Artillery to complete their proper number; also, if the guns for the Territorial Field Artillery will be supplied with dial sights
210
in place of the wooden arc sights, and, if so, when."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put this Question on the Paper in the hope that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary will take this opportunity of telling us when the guns still required for the Territorial Artillery will be delivered. The howitzer brigades have only received about half the full number of guns. Naturally these brigades are becoming somewhat disheartened, as this will be the third training they have been called upon to carry through with only half their number of guns. The Territorial Artillery has come in for a good deal of criticism, and I, for one, do not regret it at all, because I feel that these criticisms are all made with a view to improving the present state of affairs. But I think the first thing to be done is to provide the Territorial Artillery with the necessary guns to make up their full complement. Those who had experience of the Volunteer Artillery will not dare to hope that the Territorial Artillery will be armed with any more modern guns than the latest cast off from the Regulars. The howitzer brigades are now waiting for the guns to be discarded by the Regulars. That brings out this other point, that while all the Territorial howitzer brigades are short of guns, a corresponding number of Regular batteries are armed with guns which in military circles are considered obsolete. Why there has been this long delay in supplying the howitzer guns I do not know, unless it is that the orders for the new howitzers for the Regulars have only recently been given, or that the guns cannot be turned out in a reasonable time.
I hope the noble Lord will also be able to say that the Territorial Artillery will be provided with dial sights in place of the old wooden arc sights, which are inconvenient and tend to make practice in artillery very slow. There is truth in the criticism that the Territorial Artillery are slow. The officers do not have the opportunities that officers in the Regulars have of observation of gun practice, and the horses they have to handle are practically unbroken for the work they have to do. Those are big difficulties that have to be faced. The matter of providing dial sights for the Artillery is not a large item, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to give a favourable answer to that part of my Question and also to the former part.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, the unfortunate delay in issuing the full number of guns to the Territorial howitzer batteries is due to the fact that they are waiting for the guns which are at present in use by the Regular Artillery, and which are about to be replaced by the new howitzers. The issue of the new howitzers to the Regular Artillery will begin next month, and as those guns are issued the Regulars will give up their present guns and they will be sent without delay to the Territorial batteries. I am glad to say that there is no Territorial battery with less than two guns, and four batteries have their full complement of four guns. To the same cause is due the fact that the dial sights have not been issued to the Territorial Field Artillery. We intend to issue proper dial sights to them, and the wooden ones they are at present using are only intended to be used until we can issue to them the dial sights at present being used by the Regulars. I hope that before very long the Regular Artillery will be provided with new dial sights, and as soon as that is accomplished the dial sights which they are now using will be handed over to the Territorials. There is always an amount of uncertainty in connection with the manufacture of fine and exceedingly complicated mechanism, and I cannot give the noble Earl any answer as to the actual date when these sights will be delivered. But I can assure him that there will be no delay which can possibly be avoided in equipping the Territorial Artillery in this direction.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, in making the Motion which stands in my name I am sure I shall be expressing the feeling of all your Lordships in stating the
212
regret which I feel that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has been ordered, under medical advice, to go abroad before the end of the session. We all hope he will return entirely restored to carry on his important and arduous duties. In the meantime we shall all be pleased to think that those duties are entrusted to one so competent and so experienced as the noble Lord who sits opposite.
Moved, That the Lord Balfour be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for the remainder of this session in the absence of the Earl of Onslow; that the Lord Balfour do take the Chair in all Committees of the Whole House unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House; that the Lord Balfour do also take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills and other matters unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Clydebank and District Water —Was presented by the Lord Pentland; read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 105.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Three o'clock.