Lords Sitting of 15 November 1910

Preamble
The EARL SPENCER—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PEER'S BANKRUPTCY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that lie had received from the Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court of Justice a certificate under the Seal of the said Court, stating that the Right Honourable William Frederick Le Poer-Trench, Earl of Clancarty, who sits in this House as Viscount Clancarty, of 21, Cadogan Gardens, in the county of London, being a Peer of the Realm, was adjudicated bankrupt on the 4th day of August, 1910: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
UNION OF BENEFICES (METROPOLIS) ACT, 18110.
Scheme for effecting an union of the Benefice of Christ Church, Spitalfields, and the Benefice of St. Mary, Spital Square, or Spitalfields: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 158.)
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
Statute made by the Governing Body of Magdalen College, Oxford, on the 25th May, 1910, amending the Statutes of the College relating to the Waynflete and other Professorships: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 159.)
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
University Court Ordinance, No. 31 (Glasgow, No. 9) Regulations for Degrees in Medicine: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 160.)

IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
1. Statutes for the Queen's University of Belfast;
2. Statute B. for University College, Galway:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 161.)

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
Amendment of Statute 129 of the Statutes of the University of London: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 162.)
PAYMENT OF RATES BY INSTALMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I beg to give notice that I propose to take the Second Reading of the Payment of Rates by Instalments (Scotland) Bill on Thursday next.

THE LATE EARL SPENCER.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, before we proceed to the business on the Paper I feel sure that I shall be carrying out the wishes of the House by saying a word about one who has been for some years, absent from our Benches, but whom we have not forgotten and who has passed away since we were last here—I mean Lord Spencer. Certainly on this side of the House we cannot refrain from saying something, because we cannot forget that but for the sudden blow which fell upon him in the year 1905 he would have held the foremost place on this Bench of ours during the lifetime of the present Government.
Lord Spencer's career started at an early age. He became Viceroy of Ireland at the unusually early age of thirty-three. He afterwards held the office of President of the Council at a time when that post involved the charge of the Education Department, and he filled with distinction the office of First Lord of the Admiralty. In holding all those offices the keynotes of his character were the qualities of courage and of simplicity. Be never fell short of what was demanded by a difficult situation either when physical or moral courage was required; and as your Lordships well know, he had to encounter many difficult situations. Lord Spencer would have been the first to deprecate comparison between his capacities and those of the men who have filled the largest place in our political history of late. He was never a great orator, although he attained no little facility in speaking, and I think that he always enjoyed taking part in debates in your Lordships' House.

671
It may be true to say that for the very first. order of Statesmen a wider range of knowledge and a more complex or even more subtle character are required. If we regard the figures of the half-dozen men who have held the highest political places in the last hundred years we might he disposed to arrive at that conclusion. But of this I am certain, that it will be an ill day for public life in this country when men of the type of Lord Spencer cease to take a prominent part in our politics. Lord Spencer was also conspicuous in other aspects. In his own county he was for years the foremost figure, whether in county business or in those field sports in which he was such an acknowledged expert.. I cannot forget, too, the interest that he took in the great school of Harrow, of which he was so distinguished a son. My Lords, I need say no more, but I desired, holding the position I do, to lay this tribute on the grave of a high-minded Statesman whose memory will long be preserved with affection in the minds of all those who had the privilege of knowing him.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships without exception will consider it suitable and proper that Lord Spencer's death should not be allowed to pass by without some notice in this House, in which virtually the whole of his public career was spent. I think I am right in saying- that Lord Spencer had a seat in the House of Lords for somewhere about half a century, and during a great part of that period he held a position very conspicuous and in all respects honoured and respected. Lord Spencer held more than one high office, and left behind the reputation of a courageous and hard-working administrator. Of Lord Spencer's position in this House the noble Earl spoke, I thought, in terms characterised by his usual felicity of description. No one, I suppose, and least of all Lord Spencer himself, would have claimed for him that he possessed in a high degree the gift of eloquence; but in all public assemblies there are men who carry weight, not on account of their power of language, not on account of their ability to clothe their thoughts in ornate or picturesque words, but from their common sense, their character, and their courage. Those were all of them attributes which Lord Spencer possessed in the highest degree.
672
My Lords, for some time we have missed Lord Spencer from his place in this House; and now that death has taken him we realise what a loss Parliament and the country have sustained. To you he appeared as a trusted colleague and a valued Party leader. To us on this side of the House he always seemed an honourable and generous adversary. All parties and all sections in this House regarded him as a member of whom the House of Lords might well be proud. There were some—and I trust that I may be permitted to count myself among the numberj—who knew him not only as a public man, but as a private friend, and who felt towards him not only sincere respect but a very deep and hearty affection.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I venture to ask the noble Earl opposite a question of which I have given him private notice. Is he able to give the House this evening any information as to the course of public business during the early days of the session?
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, through some error for which I am certain the noble Marquess is in no way responsible I failed to receive the private notice of which he has spoken; but he and the House, I am sure, will understand that in the absence of any statement as to the general course of public business by my right hon. friend in another place, I am not able to give to-day a definite answer to the question which has just been put. As the House is aware, there is not much business on the Paper for this week, and the first important question that comes before us is a Motion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches (Lord Roberts) which is put down for Monday next. I am afraid that I can say nothing to-day of the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to business; but I will endeavour to give the information as soon as I am in a position to make a similar statement to that which will be made by my right hon. friend in another place.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we were prepared to hear of the inability of His Majesty's Government to give us any very definite information as to what was to happen during the next

673
day or two, but I confess that I for one was not prepared for such a complete inability to throw any light whatever upon the further proceedings of this House. I should not have pursued the question further, but I think it may be for the general convenience that I should at once make an announcement which I think ought not to be longer deferred. It is this: that I shall move to-morrow a Motion in the following terms—
"That this House invites His Majesty's Govern-meat to submit without further delay the provisions of the Parliament Bill for the consideration and decision of Parliament."
The Parliament Bill, I need not remind your Lordships, is the Bill which was introduced in April last and read a first time in the House of Commons. Its full title is—
"A Bill to make provision with respect to the powers of the House of Lords in relation to those of the Rouse of Commons, and to limit the duration of Parliaments."
I desire now, if the House will kindly give me its attention for a moment, to say a few words upon another subject connected with the Conference, the proceedings of which terminated a few days ago. That Conference was held upon the condition that absolute secrecy should be maintained with regard to its proceedings. I think that was a wise decision, and for this reason, and perhaps for this reason alone. Some of us are not without hopes that, although this particular Conference was not productive of a definite conclusion, other Conferences may be held and may be more successful in their results. If that is so, it seems to me to follow that the one condition which holds out any hope of good results ensuing from that particular mode of dealing with political difficulties is that the discussions should be held under time seal of absolute secrecy. The policy of secrecy is, however, attended by this great inconvenience. The public is necessarily without authentic accounts of that which takes place; and therefore the purveyors of information make it their business to supply the public with accounts which are not authentic, and which are based largely, or entirely, upon conjecture and the collection of those straws of gossip which may be found flying about in the purlieus of Whitehall. It occurs to one naturally enough that if these unauthorised statements are prevalent they may be contradicted. Some of us, I think probably the noble Earl him
674
self, must have been sorely tempted during the last few days to rush into print. But there is this fatal objection, that the moment you begin contradicting these misrepresentations the public draws the conclusion that every statement which is not so contradicted is accurate and deserving of trust. Therefore, my Lords, painful though it may be to us sometimes to hold our peace, I think we must make up our minds to suffer in silence.
But there are some misstatements which I do not think fall quite within this category. I refer particularly to misstatements affecting not what happened inside the Conference but what happened outside it; and it is with regard to one of these misstatements that I desire to say a few words before I sit down. I find in the Westminster Gazette of last Friday a statement from which I take the following essential passages. In the leading article of that day, based on a statement which appeared in the Daily Mail, I find the following passage—
"The Mail takes up the story from the beginning of this month, when it assumes that settlement through the device of a Joint Committee was in sight."
Quoting from the Mail the article goes on thus—
"Hopes of a satisfactory settlement were bright…A. week ago it was agreed that Mr. Balfour should lay the proposals of the Conference before his more intimate colleagues in his last Ministry. The position taken up by an influential section of Unionist Peers who had not been members of the Conference was this: 'If we are to be deprived of our powers, let it be done by the constituencies and not by any Conference'. Their opposition to the joint Committee carried the day, and it only remained for Mr. Balfour to announce this decision to Mr. Asquith."
Upon this the Westminster Gazette comments as follows—
"The Conference broke, according to this account, because the Peers would not let Mr. Balfour accept a settlement which the Daily Mail describes as 'satisfactory.' 'Their opposition carried the day, and it only remained for Mr. Balfour to announce the decision to Mr. Asquith…'if we are to be deprived of our powers' say the Peers—we quote the exact words of the Daily Mail— let it be done by the constituencies and not by any Conference.'"
My Lords, I have drawn attention to this statement because I desire to qualify it here as without foundation. There has been no consultation either with the Unionist Peers as a whole, or with a section of the Unionist Peers, and it is untrue that the Conference broke down because the Peers or a section of the

675
Peers would not allow Mr. Balfour to accept the terms which were within his reach. It seems to me that this contradiction is necessary. I think it is due to your Lordships that it should be made, and I conceive that this is the proper place in which to make it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think I can only say a word by leave of the House, because there is no question before us; but with respect to the two matters raised by the noble Marquess in his speech, I have to say, first, that when he makes his Motion to-morrow I hope to be in a position to state the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Parliament Bill. As regards the second matter of which the noble Marquess spoke, I am in full agreement with him as to the reasons for maintaining that obligation of confidence which has surrounded the Conference from the first. The reasons which he so happily put forward seemed to me conclusive, even if there were no others, against any attempt to describe for the benefit of a curious public precisely what occurred during the twenty-one days of our consultations.
I am not, I think, called upon to say anything as regards the contradiction of a rumour that appeared in a newspaper which is ordinarily supposed to support the views of noble Lords opposite, and was, therefore, as the noble Marquess points out, erroneously supposed to be in possession of accurate information as to what occurred outside the Conference. The noble Marquess was, of course, entirely within his rights in repudiating that statement, and I can only say for myself that so far as any rumours have prevailed as to what happened in regard to the Conference, either within the Conference room or outside of it, I personally, and I think I can speak also for my colleagues, do not propose to offer any contradiction of any statement, however preposterous it may be. Rumours and fancies of that kind must, I think, be left to work their own contradiction, for I am quite in accord with the noble Marquess that the moment one begins contradicting there is always a danger that any statement that remains uncontradicted is taken. as being accurate.
THE EARL OF ROSE BERY: My Lords, I have only one word to say with reference to the question before the House which appears to be concerned with the course of
676
public business. His Majesty's Government, no doubt, possess the confidence of Parliament, or of one House of Parliament, but I must say that that confidence is not very fully reciprocated on their part. We met to-day in the hope of a statement. We were first told that this statement would be deferred till to-morrow, and now I understand it is to be deferred till Friday. From day to clay we wake up to read new announcements, all apparently of equal authority, in the newspapers with regard to the confidential statements with which His Majesty's Government are prepared to repay the unlimited confidence which they and their Conference have received from the nation during the last few months. I confess I think that Parliament is treated somewhat scurvily in this matter. But that is not the point I wish to raise.
There is one matter with which I am personally connected and to which this House is also deeply pledged—I mean the Resolutions which stand in my name on the Paper. My noble friend behind me has just given notice of a Motion to invite, so to speak, the Government to bring forward their Parliament Bill at the earliest possible moment. Of course I do not know what answer the Government will return to my noble friend's invitation; but in the meantime what becomes of the Resolutions? They are the outcome of the wish of the majority of the House of Lords to reform itself. I, myself, am very sceptical as to the good results, or any results, that may accrue from discussing the Parliament Bill of the Government or the Veto Resolutions of the Government before these Resolutions of mine have been discussed and either passed or rejected by this House; but I am in the hands of the noble Marquess. I quite acknowledge that the course which he considers most expedient will be the one followed by this House or by the majority of this House, but, at the same time, I do wish to know from him what position he occupies relatively to these Resolutions, and whether, in the event of the menaced life of the House of Commons being unexpectedly prolonged, there will be an opportunity afforded us, before or after the Parliament Bill has been discussed, of entering on the consideration of these Resolutions again.
I must state my own earnest conviction that the Resolutions ought to be taken at once—that they ought to be taken tomorrow rather than not at all—I think

677
they ought to take precedence of any measure of the Government dealing with this subject, and we have the emphatic pledge of my noble friend opposite that they should take that precedence. Therefore I confess that it is with some misgiving—though I admit the superior political sagacity of the noble Marquess—that I heard the proposition which may shelve or delay the immediate consideration of my Resolutions by this House. I came to London yesterday fully prepared to put down these Resolutions for to-morrow, if necessary, rather than postpone them, and I must state my conviction that that would be the best course for this House to adopt—rather to sit and discuss these Resolutions all night tomorrow than run the risk of a Dissolution being announced on Friday and leaving the House without having had any opportunity of discussing them at all.
Remember what has happened with regard to the Resolutions. The most immediate, the most capital of them was passed by this House—that in which the House renounced the hereditary right to legislate, which is, after all, the keystone of the whole matter. At that period the House adjourned and an event took place which filled the nation with mourning and created an entirely new situation of affairs. That event also produced another change. It produced the Conference, and it was then stated and held, though I confess I was not in perfect agreement with that opinion, that during the Conference the House of Lords should suspend the consideration of its Resolutions. Now it appears from all I can gather from the organs of public opinion, which are probably better informed on this subject than my noble friend opposite, that no opportunity will be given to this House to discuss these Resolutions at all. I gang of course, in the hands of the House, but I must protest, if that be the course which is going to be taken, against the treatment which has been accorded to this House and to its projected Resolutions of reform.

THE ARMY.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War the Questions standing in my name on the Paper—

1. The total number of non-commissioned officers and men serving in the
678
Regular Army in the United Kingdom on the 30th September, 1908.

2. The number of the above under 20 years of age.

3. The rate per cent. which must be allowed for casualties on mobilisation for men serving with the Colours, over 20 years of age.

4. The number of men who will leave the United Kingdom as drafts during the Trooping Season of 1910–1911.

5. The establishment of the First Class of the Army Reserve in 1910.

6. The estimated strength of the First Class of the Army Reserve in 1913.

7. The number of Army Reservists who are at present residing out of the United Kingdom.

8. The number of combatant Army Reservists who have undertaken the obligation to serve on mobilisation with the Reserve of the Army Medical Corps.

9. The total deficiencies of non-commissioned officers and men in the Special Contingent. Is it the intention to make good such deficiencies from the Army Reserve, or to leave the Expeditionary Force incomplete on mobilisation in respect of the Special Contingent.

10. The number of non-commissioned officers and men required to form two Mounted Brigades according to the War Establishment, 1910.

11. The number of non-commissioned officers and men required for the Regular Mounted Infantry in place of the Non-Regular Cavalry for the six Infantry Divisions, as scheduled in Table 1 of Army Memorandum of 8th April, 1907.

12. The number of Regular Reservists required to bring up to war establishment the Regular Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry not included in the Expeditionary- Force, but retained at home for the defence of the United Kingdom.

13. The rate per cent, which must be allowed for casualties on the mobilisation of the First Class Army Reserve.

14. The estimated strength of Section D, the second class of the Army Reserve in 1913.

15. The minimum and the maximum periods during which a man in the second class of the Army Reserve enlisted under the three-years term of enlistment will have been absent from

679
the Colours, excluding those who complete 12 years of Colour service.

16. The rate per cent. it is necessary to allow for casualties in the second class of the Army Reserve on mobilisation.

17. In the event of the mobilisation of the Regular Army for foreign service, will any men in the Second Class of the Army Reserve, Section D, and any men in the Special Reserve be required to proceed abroad with the Expeditionary Force in order to complete the numbers scheduled. in Table 1 of Army Memorandum, 8th April, 1907, plus two Mounted Brigades since added to the Expeditionary Force by statement of the Secretary of State for War on 27th June, 1910.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, the answers to the noble Duke's Questions are as follow: To Question 1, the answer is 118,814; to Question 2, 32,970; to Question 3, ten per cent.; to Question 4, 13,603; to Question 5, 138,000—that is the number taken in the Army Estimates, and it covers Section D; there is no separate estimate for Sections A and B. The answer to Question 6 is 131,267, made up of 106,372 Sections A and B, and 24,895 Section D. The reply to Question 7 is 7,198, and to Question 8, 1,739 (on November 5, 1910). In the first part of Question 9 the noble Duke asks for the total deficiencies of non-commissioned officers and men in the Special Contingent. The number is 6,622. With regard to the second part of Question 9, the deficiencies will be made up in various ways according to what seems best at the time; they will probably be made up out of Reservists who are surplus for mobilisation purposes to other arms, by special enlistment, and in ways of that kind. To Question 10, the answer is 5,765; to Question 11, 2,016; to Question 12, 3,729; to Question 13, ten per cent. With regard to Question 14, 24,895 is the estimated strength of Section D provided it is kept open the whole time. Section D is not the second class of the Army Reserve; it is now always classed in the first class of the Army Reserve. In reply to Question 15, assuming that Section D is meant, the period of absence of the three-years man will normally be—minimum nine years, maximum thirteen years. Men of certain special trades, such as farriers, saddlers, who are permitted to re-engage in Section D,
680
may be longer away from the Colours—maximum, seventeen years. The same applies to men of the Royal Horse Artillery, Royal Field Artillery, Cavalry, and Army Service Corps who are permitted to re-engage. The reply to Question 16 is, ten per cent. As to Question 17, I cannot give the noble Duke the actual numbers of Section D that will be required. But the number of Special Reservists required will be 15,175, made up of Irish Horse, 336; Royal Field Artillery, 5,046; Royal Engineers, 1,257; Army Service Corps, 5,808; Royal Army Medical Corps, 2,201; and Army Veterinary Corps, 527.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War the second series of Questions standing in my name—

1. The total number of officers, noncommissioned officers, and men deficient in all branches, combatant and non-combatant, of the Territorial Force on the 30th September, 1910.

2. The number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men now serving under 20 years of age.

3. The number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who have not yet completed their recruit's course of musketry.

4. The number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who in 1909–1910 failed to reach the qualifying standard for musketry, but who were afterwards, in accordance with Army Order 38 of 1910, returned as qualified, and the number who did not attempt to qualify under Army Order 38 of 1910.

5. The number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Territorial Army who were absent with and without leave from camp in 1910, and the numbers who have been absent with and without leave from camp on two occasions during their service.

LORD LUCAS: The total number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men deficient in all branches, combatant and non-combatant, of the Territorial Force on September 30, 1910, was: officers, 1,451; non-commissioned officers and men, 43,923. This figure as to officers does not take into account the officers on the

681
Unattached List or the officers of the Officers Training Corps, as these do not count against the Establishment. In reply-to Question 2, the number of non-commissioned officers and men serving under twenty years of age on October 1 fast was 83,346; the ages of officers cannot be given. As to Questions 3 and 4, I cannot supply the noble Duke with the numbers, because the musketry returns are not due until the end of this month. It takes a considerable time to tabulate them, and I am afraid I shall not be able to give them this year. With regard to Question 5, the numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force who were absent with and without leave from camp in 1910 were: Absent with leave—officers, 1,377; non-commissioned officers and men, 20,126. Absent without leave—officers, 44; non-commissioned officers and men, 4,784.

TERRITORIAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords. I beg to put the Question which stands in my name on the Paper—viz.: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give the date at which howitzers will be supplied to the Territorial Field Artillery to complete their proper number; and whether there are a sufficient number of the old pattern howitzers now in use in the British Isles in the Regular Artillery to meet the deficiency in the Territorial Brigades.
I might remind your Lordships that, in replying to a Question of a. similar nature in this House during the summer, the noble Lord the Under-Secretary held out the hope to the Territorial Force that they would shortly receive their complement of guns. The noble Lord then stated that the reorganisation of the Regular Forces would commence in a few days, and that as the old guns were replaced by the new ones the discarded guns would be passed on to the Territorial Brigades. That statement was made four months ago, and it would be interesting if the noble Lord could tell your Lordships how many howitzers have since that elate been so passed on. With regard to the latter part of my Question, I might perhaps explain that a number of howitzer brigades are quartered outside the. British Isles, and that there is a feeling that when these brigades are furnished with new howitzers the old guns may be scrapped to save the
682
expense of sending them back to this country, and that thus the Territorial Force will not receive their full equipment. I hope the noble Lord will be able to dispel this fear, and to make a statement which will be encouraging to the Territorial Force as to the reception by them of the guns necessary to make up their complement.
LORD LUCAS: The issue of the new howitzers to the Regulars should commence in January next, and shortly afterwards it will be possible to begin transferring the howitzers now in the hands of the Regular Artillery to the batteries of the Territorial Force. At this moment it is not possible to give actual dates, but the manufacturers are hastening as much as possible the completion of the new weapons. When the noble Earl last raised this question I told him that the issue was going to be made in September. It is true that we began the issue of the new howitzers to the Regulars last September, but it was found necessary to recall them as certain slight modifications had to be made, and this has been the cause of the delay. These modifications are now being made. We hope that in a month or two the alterations found to be necessary will be completed, and then the Territorials will receive their howitzers. With regard to the second part of the Question, I may say that there are plenty of these guns in this country, and that there will be a sufficient number available for arming the whole of the howitzer batteries of the Territorial Force.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Edinburgh Corporation—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. 163.)

GOVAN BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Govan Burgh—Was presented by the Lord Pentland; read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Four o'clock.